!S?J',*'»!?\"!^ 



mm^mm'mmm^ 



^>^V' 





Class _E.1j_U1 
Book >1) ^1 



GcmSssX- 



C^ffiXRIGHT DEPOSm 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS STUDIES 

IN THE 

SOCIAL SCIENCES 

Vol. X March, 1922 No. 1 



A Study of "Monarchical" Tendencies in the 
United States, from 1776 to 1801 



BY 

LOUISE BURNHAM DUNBAR, Ph.D. 

Instructor in History 
University of Illinois 



PRICE «a.2S 



PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
URBANA 

[Entered as second-class matter, July 27, 1915, at the post office at Urbana, 
Illinois, under the Act of August 24, 1912. Acceptance for mailing at the 
special rate of postage provided for in section 1103, Act of October 3, 1917, 
authorized July 31, 1918.] 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 

Vol. I, 1912 
Nos. 1 and 2. Financial history of Ohio. By E. L. Bogart. ?1.80. 
No. 3. Sources of municipal revenues in Illinois. By L. D. Upson.* 
No. 4. Friedrich Gentz: an opponent of the French Revolution and Napoleon. 
By P. F. Reiff. 80 cents. 

Vol. II, 1913 

No. 1. Taxation of corporations in Illinois, other than railroads, since 1872. 
By J. R. Moore. 55 cents. 

Nos. 2 and 3. The West in the diplomatic negotiations of the American Revolu- 
tion. By P. C. Phillips. $1.25. 

No. 4. The development of banking in Illinois, 1817-1863. ByG. W. Dowrie. 
90 cents. 

Vol. Ill, 1914 
Nos. 1 and 2. The history of the general property tax in Illinois. By R. M. 

Haig. 11.25. 
No. 3. The Scandinavian element in the United States. By K. C. Babcock.* 
No. 4. Church and state in Massachusetts, 1691-1740. By Susan M. Reed.* 

Vol. IV, 1915 
No. 1. The Illinois Whigs before 1846. By C. M. Thompson.* 
No. 2. The defeat of Varus and the German frontier policy of Augustus. Bv 

W. A. Oldfather and H. V. Canter.* 
Nos. 3 and 4. The history of the Illinois Central railroad to 1870. By H. G. 

Brownson. $l.2S. 

Vol. V, 1916 
No. 1. The enforcement of international law through municipal law in the 

United States. By Philip Quincy Wright. $1.25. 
No. 2. The life of Jesse W. Fell. By Frances M. Morehouse. 60 cents. 
No. 3. Land tenure in the United States with special reference to Illinois. By 

Charles L. Stewart.* 
No. 4. Mine taxation in the United States. By L. E. Young. |1.50. 

Vol. VI, 1917 
Nos. 1 and 2. The veto power of the governor of Illinois. By Niels H. Debel. 

$1.00. 
No. 3. Wage bargaining on the vessels of the Great Lakes. By H. E. Hoagland. 

$1.50. 
No. 4. The household of a Tudor nobleman. By P. V. B. Jones. $1.50. 

Vol. VII, 1918 

Nos. 1 and 2. Legislative regulation of railway finance in England. By C. C. 

Wang.* 
No. 3. The American municipal executive. By R. M. Story. $1.25. 
No. 4. The Journeymen Tailors' Union of America. A studv in trade union 

policy. By Charles J. Stowell. $1.00. 

Vol. VIII, 1919 

No. 1. Co-operative and other organized methods of marketing California horti- 
cultural products. By J. W. Lloyd.* 

No. 2. Cumulative voting and minority representation in Illinois. By F. B. 
Moore. Revised edition. 75 cents. 

Nos. 3 and 4. Labor problems and labor administration in the United States 
during the World War. By Gordon Watkins. $2.00. 



* Out of print. 



^ 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS STUDIES 

IN THE M^3 1 



SOCIAL SCIENCES ^'^^^ 



Vol. X March, 1922 No. 1 



Board of Editors: 

Ernest L. Bogart John A. Fairlie 

Albert H. Lybyer 



Published by the University of Illinois 

Under the Auspices of the Graduate School 

Urbana, Illinois 



.1787 




C1A69-8148 



A Study of **MonarchicaP' Tendencies in the United 
States from 1776 to 1801 



BY 

LOUISE BURNHAM DUNBAR, Ph.D. 

Instructor in History 
University of Illinois 



Copyright, 1923 
By the University of Illinois 



f EB -2 ^ 



CONTENTS 



CHAPTER PAGE 



Preface 7 



I. Attitude of the Americans towards Kingship on the 

Eve of the Revolution 9 



II. Monarchical Tendencies in the United States during the 

Revolutionary War: The Plan of Count de Broglie 27 



III. Monarchical Tendencies at the Close of the Revolution- 
ary War: The Plan of Colonel Nicola 40 

IV. Monarchical Tendencies from the End of the War to the 
Constitutional Convention: The Prince Henry Episode,. 54 



V. Monarchical Tendencies in the United States during 

the Framing of the Present Constitution 76 



VI. Monarchical Tendencies in the United States from the 

Close of the Constitutional Convention to 1801 99 

Conclusion 127 

Appendix A: Nicola Letters 129 

Appendix B: Bibliography 135 



PREFACE 

The present study is an attempt to add something of value and 
interest to the understanding of the nature, causes, and extent, 
as well as the evidences and influence of monarchical tendencies 
in the United States from 1776 to 1801. Many writers have 
touched upon the subject. Some have disposed of it with a few 
sweeping generalizations; others have given considerable space to 
certain of the more striking manifestations of monarchical ten- 
dencies. I have prepared a study which presents, so far as I 
know them, all the more important data on which justifiable 
generalizations can be based. By its relative completeness and 
by its arrangement of the facts, for the most part, in chronological 
order, this study should afford an account somewhat clearer and 
more comprehensive than those attempted in preceding treat- 
ments. 

Foremost among numerous persons to whom I am indebted for 
valuable criticism and suggestions are Professor Theodore C. Pease 
and Professor Evarts B. Greene, of the University of Illinois. 
The latter assisted in an advisory capacity from the very outset 
of the work. Any errors in respect to fact or treatment are, of 
course, entirely my own. 



CHAPTER I 

ATTITUDE OF THE AMERICANS TOWARDS 

KINGSHIP ON THE EVE OF THE 

REVOLUTION 

In 1765 the Stamp Act Congress professed to be "sincerely de- 
voted, with the warmest sentiments of affection and duty to his 
Majesty's person and government," and "inviolably attached to 
the present happy establishment of the Protestant succession. "^ 
In the closing paragraph of the Resolutions of the Congress George 
III is called "the best of sovereigns,"^ and four days later, in a 
similar document, the members declared, "We glory in being the 
subjects of the best of kings. "^ Assertions of this sort, often re- 
peated in the immediately succeeding years, ill accord with the 
famous indictment of the King in the Declaration of Independ- 
ence.^ The contrast is more or less evident in almost any histori- 
cal treatment of the ten years prior to the Revolutionary War. 
The development of this hostility to King George and its ex- 
tension to the very institution of kingship demands attention at 
the outset of our investigation. 

Throughout the Stamp Act controversy, despite the high pitch 
of popular indignation,^ the Americans accorded respect to the 
King and cast the blame upon his ministers.^ Just as attention 

^William Macdonald, Select Charters and other Documents Illustrative of American 
History, 1606-1775, 314. 

mid.,?>\s. 

mi. Niles, Principles and Acts of the Revolution, Petition to the House of Com- 
mons, 459. 

^Journals of the Continental Congress, V, 511-514. 

^For transcripts of official reports on the intensity of feeling see letters of Nov. 
4, 5, 8, 1765, by General Gage, American Stamp Act Collection, Bancroft trans- 
cript. Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress. For secondary account see that 
by G. E. Howard, Preliminaries of the Revolution {The American Nation: A 
History, VIII), ch. viii. 

^Jeremy Belknap comments on absence of disrespect to the King as illustrated by 
letters and papers passing between "the Sons of Liberty in Portsmouth and their 
brethren in Boston, Providence, Connecticut, New York, &c., during the time of 
the Stamp Act." Belknap Papers, I, 120-121 {Massachusetts Historical Society 



10 MONARCHICAL TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES [lO 

centered upon the ministry as the hated oppressor, so attention 
centered upon the King as the source of deliverance and his part 
in the repeal was emphasized and exalted. In taking this atti- 
tude the Americans were probably influenced by the English 
newspaper account, which arrived on the same ship with the 
official dispatch. This described the King's participation in a 
truly impressive manner. For example, it declared that as he 
had gone through the streets on his way to the House of Lords to 
give his assent to the repeal, ** there was such a vast Concourse of 
People, huzzaing, clapping Hands, &c. that it was several Hours 
before his Majesty reached the House. "^ A diary entry expressed 
the general sentiment when it recorded the arrival of ** the glorious 
news of the total repeal of the Stamp Act, which was signed by 
his Majesty King George the 3d of ever glorious memory, which 
God long preserve and his illustrious house. "^ 

Again, the King was made the central figure in the jubilant 
celebrations of the event in America. Emblematical paintings 
were prepared in some places, box-like arrangements set one above 
another. Upon these the King was depicted in all his glory — 
and in model company! The upper compartment of the Boston 
pyramid was decorated by " heads of King and Queen & fourteen 
of ye Patriots, being four on a side."^ That at Newport was still 
more splendid. ** In the Centre of the third, [highest compart- 
ment] his Majesty in his Royal Robes sat enthroned, & with a 
most gracious Aspect, pointed to a Scroll . . . inscribed in 
Capitals, * Stamp Act Repealed 1766, G. R.* " Pitt, with Magna 

Collections, 5th ser., II). A vivid account of the demonstrations against the min- 
istry is contained in "An anonymous diary of Events in America" [by Ebenezer 
Hazard], Feb. 7, 1765, to June 30, 1770," American Stamp Act Collection, Manu- 
scripts Division, Library of Congress. The famous incident of Patrick Henry's 
speech and the interrupting cries of "Treason" is told by himself in his Life and 
Correspondence and Speeches I, 81. See also Howard, Preliminaries of the Revo- 
lutiony 144. Compare American Historical Review, XXVI, 727-729, 745. 

^Reprinted in America in handbill form. For facsimile see J. Winsor, Narrative 
and Critical History of America, VI, 33. 

^Diary of John Rowe, Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, 2d ser., X, 
62. 

^P. 41, Stevens, Transcript of Hazard's narrative for 1765-1770, Stamp Act 
Congress, Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress. 



Il] ON THE EVE OF THE REVOLUTION II 

Charta, was at the right of the King, while Camden, with the Bill 
of Rights, completed this interesting group.^° 

The above passages have been quoted not because they are 
quaint and amusing but because they indicate one of the most 
important features of the theory of kingship held by the American 
colonists.^^ The wearer of the crown was expected to be the 
champion of the rights of his people and accordingly was the center 
of popular interest in government.^^ If he should fail so much 
the worse for him, but the people would be slow to admit failure. 
Thus every year till after the bloodshed at Lexington and Con- 
cord there were expressions by Americans of loyalty to the King,^^ 

^°For other celebrations see Stevens, op. cif., June, 1766, and Rowe's Diary y 
May 19 and June 4, 1766, op. cit., 62. 

^^A feature which has survived in the popular attitude towards the President, 
as depicted in an account like that by Gaillard Hunt, "The President of the United 
States;" Wisconsin Historical Publications, LXIII, 76-98. 

^f course, the writer means this to apply to national or imperial government 
rather than local. 

^^he references in the following cases are to issues of the Newport Mercury 
unless otherwise indicated. Most of the data is of a nature to have been also 
printed elsewhere and could be located by a person who did not have access to the 
Mercury but did have the other sources at hand. Some of the early issues of the 
Mercury carry two dates in their subtitle. In making citations below only the 
second is used. For example, the first reference is recorded as *W. M., Jan. 12, 
1767," rather than *' Newport Mercury , from Monday, January 5, — to Monday, 
January 12, 1767." 

Reply of the House of Burgesses to the Lieutenant Governor, Nov. 6, 1766, 
{N. M., Jan. 12, 1767, p. 1). 

Reply of the Massachusetts House of Representatives to the Governor, Jan. 31, 

1767, (Feb. 9, 1767, p. 2). 

Celebrations of first anniversary of Stamp Act repeal, (Rowe, Diary, in Massa- 
chusetts Historical Society Proceedings, 2d ser., X, 63; N. M., Mar. 23, 1767, p. 1). 

St. Patrick's Day feast in Boston, (Mar. 30, 1767, p. 1). 

Article by "Liberus," {ibid., p. !)• 

Massachusetts Circular Letter, Feb. 11, 1768, (S. Adams, Writings, I, 188). 

Petition to the Governor by the inhabitants of Boston, June 14, 1768, (A^. M., 
June 27, 1768, p. 2). 

Instructions to representatives of the town of Boston, June 17, 1768, (June 27, 

1768, p. 3). 

Non-importation Agreement by New York merchants, Sept. 5, 1768, (Sept. 19, 
1768, p. 3.) 
Extra-legal Convention in Massachusetts, Sept. 26, 1768, (Oct. 3, 1768, p. 2). 
Letter from London describing Dr. Franklin's activities, (Dec. 5, 1768, p. 2). 



12 ''monarchical^' tendencies in the united states [I2 

or rather to their theory of kingship, even though the last and 
perhaps most famous of these, the petition of Congress to the King 
July 8, 1775, was in a sense an ultimatum to King George. ^^ 
Loyalty waned but slowly despite the fact that the months and 

Report in South Carolina Assembly, Nov. 18 (?), 1768, (Jan. 9, 1769, p. 1). 

Resolutions in the Georgia Assembly, Dec. 24, 1768, (Jan. 30, 1769, p. 4). 

Petitions of the Pennsylvania Assembly, Sept. 22, 1768, (Feb. 27, 1769, p. 1). 

Instructions of the Town of Boston, May 8, 1769, (May 22, 1769, p. 2). 

Resolves of House of Burgesses, May 16, 1679, (June 12, 1769, p. 1). 

Celebrations of King's birthday, June 4, 1770, (Rowe, Diary, op. cit., 75). 

Address of Council of Massachusetts, Mar. 20, 1770, (A^. M,, Apr. 2, 1770, p. 1). 

Address to the King by "Sidney," from the Parliamentary Spy, (Apr. 23, 1770, 
pp. 1-2). Note how conspicuous a place is given to this reprint. 

Complaint of House of Representatives of Massachusetts against Governor 
Bernard, (May 14, 1770, p. 2). 

Message from Massachusetts House of Representatives to Lieutenant-Governor, 
Oct. 13, 1770, (Oct. 29, 1770, p. 2). 

Celebration of Queen's birthday, Jan. 18, 1771, (Rowe, Diary, op. cit., 77.) 

Virginia Petition to the King, (A^. M., Feb. 25, 1771, p. 1). 

Reprint from Poor Richard's Almanac for the year 1758, (Mar. 6, 1771, p. 2). 

Address by Massachusetts House of Representatives to the Governor, Apr. 24, 
1771, (S. Adams, Writings, II, 168-169). 

Article by "Candidus," in Boston Gazette, Sept. 16, 1771. (S. Adams, Writings, 
II, 220). 

Celebration of King's birthday, June 4, 1772, (Rowe, Diary, op cit., 78). 

Items relating to royal household, (A^. M., Apr. 20, 1772, p. 1; Apr. 27, p. 2; 
Supplement, Apr. 27, p. 1). 

Celebrations of King's birthday and coronation anniversary, 1773, (Rowe, 
Diary, op. cit., 79). 

Debates of the First Continental Congress, as recorded, contain no evidence of 
hostility to king or monarchy. (Journals, I; J. Adams' notes and account. Works, 
II, 365-401). For expressions favorable to monarchy see Journals, I, 82, 86. 

Petition to the King by First Continental Congress, Oct., 1774, {ibid., I, SZ, 
115-121). 

Celebration at first appearance of the Newport Light-Infantry, {N.M. Apr. 17, 
1775, p. 3). 

Address of North Carolina Assembly to Governor, Apr. 7 (?), 1775, (May 
1,1775, p. 1). 

Letter from New York Committee of Association to Mayor of London, May 15, 
1775, (June 5, 1775, p. 1). 

Letter from New York Provincial Congress to the people of Quebec, June 2, 
1775, (June 19, 1775, p. 2). 

Correspondence between New York Provincial Congress and General Washing- 
ton, June 26, 1775, (July 10, 1775, p. 3). 

Second Petition of Congress to the King, July 8, 1775, {Journals, II, 158-161). 

"J. Adams, Works, II, 410-411. 



13] ON THE EVE OF THE REVOLUTION 1 3 

years had passed without the expected interposition by the King 
in behalf of the colonists. By 1771 a writer so widely read as 
"Candidas" was declaring that the only effect of loyal petitions 
had been to bring new burdens upon the Americans. ^^ But 
reproach was not at first directed against the King but rather 
against the ministry,^^ the Parliament, and even the English peo- 
ple. To be sure, the precedent of the tyranny of Charles I was 
cited in opposition to the quartering of royal troops in America.^^ 
Yet Samuel Adams cited the "unspotted loyalty" of the colonies 
as an argument against the necessity of the act. He placed 
express reliance upon the "wisdom and goodness of his present 
Majesty" and feared only a possible future tyrant.^^ 

Down to 1769 and 1770 American writers often lauded the 
British King and constitution in the same breath in which they 
denounced the ministry. ^^ They directed much of the brunt of 
their attack against the royal representatives in the colonies 
rather than against royalty.^^ They cast the blame upon Parlia- 

«S. Adams, Writings, II, 282. 

^^For an expression of this reproach by John Adams see his Works, X, 246. 

^^By "Antoninus" in the Boston Evening Post, quoted in the Newport Mercury y 
Mar. 2, 1767, p. 1. 

18$. Adams in the Boston Gazette, Dec. 26, 1768, Writings, I, 277, 275. 

^^" Right, Wrong, and Reasonable, with regard to America," Newport Mercury , 
Aug. 3, 1767, pp. 2-3. 

Reprint of "Sidney's" address to the King, Dec. 19, 1769, i^iJ, Apr. 23, 1770, 
pp. 1-2. 

An inflammatory address against Lord North is found in the Supplement to the 
Newport Mercury, Aug. 8, 1774, p. 1. 

Letter from Samuel Stillmen to Patience Wright, Boston, Nov. 13, 1774, Massa- 
chusetts Historical Society Proceedings, 3d ser., X, 475. 

Comment by Thomas Paine, Political Writings, I, 169-170, quoted by Tyler, 
Literary History of the American Revolution, I, 457. 

Lines copied from "a London Paper," Newport Mercury, July 3, 1775, p. 4. 

See also letter from New York provincial congress to the people of Quebec, 
June 2, 1775, ibid., June 19, 1775, p. 2. 

20Letter from the Boston Gazette, Sept. 28, 1772, ibid., Oct. 5, 1772, p. 2. 

Report that Edmund Burke had blamed colonial governors for the troubles, 
/^/^., May 16, 1774, p. 1. 

Account of the burning in effigy of Hutchinson at Philadelphia, May 3, 1774, 
ibid.. May 16, 1774, p. 2. 

See also John Adams, Works, X, 246, 454, 479. 



14 "monarchical'' tendencies in the united states [14 

ment^^ and even upon the English people^^ in a way which more or 
less exempted the King. 

Nevertheless, during the two years just mentioned, American 
opposition to Government measures gained new force and con- 
fidence. ^^ One manifestation of this change was to be found in 
certain attacks upon the King himself. He was most disrespect- 
fully ridiculed as the *'noodle to an old woman. "^4 The wish was 
expressed that "three quarters of the nation had not reason to 
think" that certain lines upon the obstinate Agamemnon were 
"very applicable at this present time:" 

"That you are honest, we are sure, 
Yet, if you give to rascals power, 
The wrongs you suffer them to do. 
Will all be justly laid on you."^^ 
The loyal addresses to the King were now parodied, as appears 
from an address "To his Sublime Majesty Oknookortunkogog" 
who is praised for his loving consideration for his people mani- 
fested in his "late order for the destruction of the poisonous 
weed tea."2« 

"Address to the people of England in Boston Gazette, Sept. 21, 1767, Newport 
Mercury, Sept. 28, 1767, p. 1. 

Address of New York Assembly to Governor, Nov. 23, 1767, ibid., Dec. 7, 1767, 
p. 2. 

Article from the Public Ledger, Apr. 29, 1774, Newport Mercury, Aug. 15, 1774, 

p. 1. 

Virginia's instructions to deputies to Congress, Aug. 1-6, 1774, ibid., Sept. 5, 
1774, p. 2. 

Hall, History of Eastern Vermont, 199. (Resolutions of "eighteen delegates 
from twelve towns," Oct. 20, 1774.) 

22Letters to Boston Gazette, Aug. 31 and Sept. 14, Newport Mercury, Sept. 7 and 
21, 1767, pp. 2, 1, respectively. 

Roger Martyn to the Boston Gazette, Newport Mercury, Sept. 21, 1767, pp. 1-2. 

Note, on the other hand, the tendency to make common cause with the English 
people as shown by the large place given to the John Wilkes controversy (in the 
Newport Mercury, during 1769 and the first weeks of 1770), and such an address as 
that in the Boston Gazette, Sept. 21, 1767, Newport Mercury, Sept. 28, 1767, p. 1. 

^For a convenient summary see J. S. Bassett, Short History of the United States, 
171-174. 

*^This refers, of course, to his deference to the dowager Queen. See Newport Mer- 
cury, Oct. 20,1169,^.1. 

^Ibid. 

^^From the Massachusetts Spy. His Majesty's answer is also recorded in the 
usual ceremonious style. Newport Mercury, Apr. 11, 1774, p. 2. A similar satire 



15] ON THE EVE OF THE REVOLUTION 1 5 

One of the "Letters of Junius," appearing in America early in 
1770, contained a very explicit account of monarchical ideas in 
the colonies.2^ Whatever his identity, ** Junius" was undoubtedly 
one of the most effective political writers of all time ^s and was 
widely read in America.^^ The passage in question will speak for 
itself. 

"They [the colonies] were ready enough to distinguish between 
you [the King] and your Ministers. They complained of an Act 
of the Legislature, but traced the Origin of it no higher than to the 
Servants of the C - n: They pleased themselves with the Hope 
that their S-r-n, if not favourable to their Cause, at least was im- 
partial. The decisive, personal Part you took against them, has 
effectually banished that first Distinction from their Minds. 
They consider you as united with your Servants against A-r-a, 
and know how to distinguish the S-r-n and a venal P-t on one Side, 
from the real Sentiments of the English People on the other. 
Looking forward to Independence, they might possibly receive 
you for their K-g; but, if ever you retire to A-r-a, be assured 
they will give you such a Covenant to digest, as the Presbytery of 
Scotland would have been ashamed to offer to Charles the Second. 
They left their native Land in Search of Freedom, and found it in 
a Desart. Divided as they are into a Thousand Forms of 
Policy and Religion, there is one Point in which they all agree: 
They equally detest the Pageantry of a K-g, and the supercilious 
Hypocrisy of a Bishop. "^^ 

In respect to his influence on public opinion "Junius" was a fore- 
is found in what purported to be a Salem item regarding the coronation anniversary 
of George III, ibid., Oct. 12, 1772, p. 3. 

27The letter of Dec. 16, 1769, directed to the King. Printed in the Newport Mer- 
cury, Feb. 19, 1770, pp. 1-3. 

*^0n the identity of "Junius" and his superiority over other writers of political 
invective see Encyclopaedia Britannica, XV, 558. 

If, perchance, "Junius" was Thomas Pownall, as is claimed by the biographer 
of the latter, the account is even more interesting to the present study than already 
indicated, for Pownall had spent years in America and was a serious student of its 
aifairs. See Life of Thomas Pownall by C. A. W. Pownall, chapter XII. See also 
the Literature of American History (Larned ed.), 873, for an estimate of Pownall's 
book on colonial government. 

^9" The paper signed JUNIUS, which has been published in Boston, Rhode- 
Island, Philadelphia and this city, has also been re-printed in the South-Carolina 
Gazette of the 19th of February last, from the St. James's Chronicle of December 
the 21st". Newport Mercury, Mar. 19, 1770, p. 3. 

^mid., Feb. 19, 1770, p. 2. 



i6 "monarchical" tendencies in the united states [i6 

runner of Thomas Paine. Unlike the later writer, however, 
"Junius" did not attack monarchical institutions as such. He 
painted in glowing colors the happy days at the opening of the 
reign of George III, and asked no more of him than that he should 
"distinguish between the conduct, which becomes the permanent 
dignity of a K-g, and that which serves only to promote the tem- 
porary interest and miserable ambition of a Minister. "^i He had 
only praise for the readiness of men "to sacrifice their lives to 
save a good Prince, or to oppose a bad one."^^ f^e believed the 
character of the English people a sufficient safeguard against the 
tyrannical attempts of any English king. 

Another indication that the censure of a king did not necessarily 
involve the censure of kingship is found in the expressed hope that 
King George might yet mend his ways. "A Chronological Table 
of Epithets" for British rulers, ranging from "The Glorious" to 
"The Never Right," suspended judgment in the case of George by 
leaving a blank space opposite his name.^^ The fable of "The 
Lion and the Fox" contained these lines: 

"May gracious Kings have all the Reverence due, 
And ev'ry Stuart find his Cromwell too."^^ 
As late as July 3, 1775, the following verse appeared: 
"In time be wise, drive Traitors from thy breast, 
And let the just, the honest round thee move; 
So shall the sinking State once more be blest 
And thou be happy in thy people's love."^^ 
But, in addition to the attacks upon the King, already dis- 
cussed, there were attacks upon the monarchical institution. An 
early and apparently isolated one appeared in the summer of 1768 

^'^Newpori Mercury, Feb. 19, 1770, p. 1. 

'^This expression is from a letter appearing later in 1770, in ibid., June 11, 1770, 
p. 1. For further attacks against the King rather than against the kingship see the 
taunts of the "Whisperer" {ibid., July 23, 1770, p. 1), the "Description of 
a Tory" {ibid., Sept. 2, 1771, p. 4), a Junius letter {ibid., Sept. 30, 1771, p. 1), 
comments by "Candidus" (Samuel Adams, Writings, II, 252, 262, 273, 292-293), 
extract from letter from London {Newport Mercury, Apr. 27, 1772, Supplement, 
p. 1), verses quoted from the North Briton {ibid., July 13, 1772, p. 2). 

^Newport Mercury, Oct. 30, 1769, p. 2. 

3^/-^/i.,Nov. 2, 1772,p. 1. 

^Copied from "a London Paper," by the Newport Mercury of July 3, 1775, p. 4. 
The title is significant, "An Elegy to the Memory of the best of Kings." 



17] ON THE EVE OF THE REVOLUTION I7 

in an appeal by **A Son of Liberty "^^ to the ** Pennsylvania 
Farmer" to leave the "temporizers" in Philadelphia and unite 
with Mr. Otis. The latter is praised for his "'Jirm and manly 
spirit" which ''fears neither commissioners^ generals^ armies^ nor 
navies^ but, inspired with the eminations of arch [word nearly 
obliterated]"^ antimonarchical principles^ . . . rouses the in- 
habitants and heroically alienates their affection from Kingly 
and British subordination.''^^ 

A more characteristic attack on kingship was expressed in an 
article from the "North-Briton" reprinted in America in 1769. 
This subjected the King's speech of recent date to a most scathing 
criticism and cited the "fatal effects" upon popular opinion of a 
speech by King Charles in 1628. At the same time it professed 
to be criticising the ministry, not the King, by quoting the "maxim 
in the English constitution that the king can do no wrong'' The 
general effect was to expose the absurdity of the maxim cited.^^ 
An account, imbued with hostility to the institution of kingship, 
traced the development of British monarchy from the time of 
its introduction by "tyrannical Anglo-Saxon invaders." It 
called attention to repeated encroachments of the King and nobles 
upon the liberties of the people, and told of the happy success of 
the Italian cities in overthrowing their "haughty lords" and put- 
ting the power into the hands of the people.^° Some writers, 
however, were not content with citing the tyranny of the Stuarts 
and its results for King Charles, but vigorously attacked or ridi- 
culed members of the succeeding line of rulers.^^ On the other 

^"To J-H-N D-ck-n-s-n Esq." See below, page 19. 

•^Both appearance and context suggest "arch." 

^^Letter to the Pennsylvania Chronicle headed "Boston, June-1768," Newport 
Mercury, Aug. 15, 1768, p. 2. Contrast with letter of July 18, 1768, signed by 
James Otis and reprinted from the Political Register, Newport Mercury, Apr. 17, 
1769, p. 1. For an interpretation see Tyler, Literary History of the American 
Revolution, I, 43. 

^^Newport Mercury, Aug. 21, 1769, p. 4. Apparently the colonists, except some 
of ultra aristocratic and "High Church" proclivities, did not regard a king as a 
sacred personage. For an article along these lines see C. H. Van Tyne, "Influence 
of the Clergy, and of Religious and Sectarian Forces, on the American Revolu- 
tion," American Historical Review, XIX, 4A-64. The footnote references as well as 
the text are very helpful to an understanding of the situation. 

"Reprinted from the Royal Magazine by the Newport Mercury, Mar. 5, 1770, p. 1. 

*^Article from the St. James's Chronicle reprinted in the Newport Mercury, Sept. 



i8 ''monarchical" tendencies in the united states [i8 

hand, one part of the British theory of monarchy could be, and 
actually was, acclaimed by opponents of its other features, namely, 
that the relation between King and subjects was purely contractual 
and dissolved by the tyranny of the former. ^^ ^g ^\i\ ]^q noted 
a little later this idea was the basis of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence.^^ 

It is natural that the American attitude towards kings other 
than their own should have influenced their general conception of 
monarchical government. Thus examples of tyrannical rule, from 
antiquity to the time of writing, were cited early in 1767. Abso- 
lutism in Spain was deplored and a scathing reference made to 
"Prussia ... as absolute as any monarch of the East." 
This attack was not, however, directed against monarchical in- 
stitutions in general but against the dangerous employment of 
the soldiery.^ A "Political Picture of Europe, for June, 1770" 
was published in an American paper. It is more antimonarchical 
in character and of considerable interest, especially since its 
brevity and humorous cast must have attracted the attention of 
any reader of the issue in which it appeared. A few quotations 
will indicate the character of this list of contemporary sovereigns: 

"The French King leading Monarchs by the nose; the political 
Puppet-master of Europe." 

"The King of Prussia, a fox in a bramble-bush; peeping first out 
at one corner, and then at another; but seeing an old woman 
watching him, whips in his head and sits still." 

"The King of Poland a Monarch without a crown, wandering 
through a court, without Nobles." 

"The Grand Seignior stretched in a melancholy posture on the 
borders of the Black Sea, half covered with ooze and seaweeds." 

The dozen other rulers described fared little better in this ac- 
count. The British King, at the end of the list, was pictured as 
"much puzzled; a fading Rose and a broken Trident lying at his 
feet. "45 

7, 1772, p. 2., and article from the Gentleman's Magazine, ibid., Feb. 8, 1773, p. 3. 

*'See especially "Extract of a Letter to the King, inserted in the London Evening 
Post, of Aug. 22, 1772," reprinted in the Newport Mercury, Nov. 9, 1772, pp. 2-3. 
The idea will be found in many of the attacks on the king already cited. 

♦'See below, p. 21, footnote 65. 

♦♦"Antoninus", quoted in the Newport Mercury, Mar. 2, 1767, p. 1. He was op- 
posing the quartering of soldiers upon the population. See above, p. 13. 

^Newport Mercury, Oct. 1, 1770, p. 2. 



19] ON THE EVE OF THE REVOLUTION I9 

Far abler than the antimonarchical writings just considered 
were three defences of kingship, contained respectively in the 
publications of the "Pennsylvania Farmer," the ** Westchester 
Farmer," and "The Farmer Refuted." Their wide circulation 
and popularity are well known, and their influence unquestioned. 
The writers supported kingship, whatever their other views might 
be. The first^ expressly approved the overthrow of the Stuarts 
as improving the condition of the English people. But he con- 
sidered it no precedent for a revolt by the colonists, for, he said, 
"if once we are separated from our mother country, what new 
form of government shall we adopt. . . . Torn from the body, 
to which we are united by religion, liberty, laws, affections, re- 
lations, language and commerce, we must bleed at every vein."'^^ 
He felt sure of the general existence of loyalty to the King^^ yet 
he betrayed a dread that if the oppressive policy of government 
were not reversed popular opinion would be aroused against even 
the legal powers of the crown, as in the days of Charles I, and 
monarchy be again overthrown.^^ 

The "Westchester Farmer"^^ appeared upon the scene a few 
weeks after the closing of the Continental Congress of 1774.^^ 
Ablest of Loyalist writers, and equalled "for immediate effect 
upon the mass of readers" by no one, perhaps, but Thomas 
Paine,^2 j^jg utterances on monarchy compel our attention. His 
best known remark on the point, so far as present day readers are 
concerned, is probably his exclamation, " . . . if I must be en- 
slaved, let it be by a KING at least, and not by a parcel of up- 
start, lawless committeemen."^^ In addition he denounced as 
heresy the theory advanced by the Continental Congress that 

*®Writing in 1768. See Writings of John Dickinson (P. L. Ford, ed.), Memoirs 
of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, XIV, 277-406. 

It will be remembered that Dickinson also composed the "Declaration of Rights," 
of the Stamp Act Congress, the popular "Liberty Song," the "Olive Branch Pe- 
tition, " and other important papers. 

^'Ibid., 326. 

'mid., 350 

«See also il>id., pp. 387-388. 

^°The Reverend Samuel Seabury, as is well known. 

"Namely, Nov. 16, 1774, Tyler, Literary History of the American Revolution, I, 
342. 

«/^/V.,348-349. 

^Ibid., 340. 



20 MONARCHICAL TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES [20 

American allegiance was due only to the King and not to Parlia- 
ment, a doctrine he believed meant to pave the way to sedition.^'* 
On the contrary, the King held his position by act of Parliament, 
therefore to disown the authority of Parliament was virtually 
to renounce the King,^^ which would lead to the tyranny of Con- 
gress, the only tyranny Americans just then needed to fear.^^ 

With a hundred and thirty years of successful republican ex- 
istence behind us, it is difficult to conceive that men could ever 
have expected an independent ** United States" to adopt a differ- 
ent government. But listen to the "Westchester Farmer," in 
1774. In case of successful rebellion against England, ''Probably 
it would cost the blood of a great part of the inhabitants of America 
to determine what kind of government we should have, whether 
a monarchy or a republic. Another effusion of blood would be 
necessary to fix a monarch, or to establish a commonwealth."^^ 

Still more important is the fact that the able refutations^^ of the 
"Westchester Farmer," penned by the youthful Alexander Hamil- 
ton, upheld monarchical government and the ruling house. This 
is best illustrated by part of a paragraph near the close of "The 
Farmer Refuted," namely: "I earnestly lament the unnatural 
quarrel between the parent state and the colonies, and most 
ardently wish for a speedy reconciliation — a perpetual and mutu- 
ally beneficial union. ... I am a warm advocate for limited 
monarchy, and an unfeigned well-wisher to the present Royal 
Family. "^^ By limited monarchy Hamilton meant exactly what 
the words say, and not a balance of monarchy, aristocracy, and 
democracy as the definition was so often made. He wrote, 
"Perhaps, indeed, it may with propriety be said that the king is 
the only sovereign of the empire. The part which the people have 
in the legislature may more justly be considered as a limitation of 

"A "gilding with which they have enclosed the pill of sedition, to entice the un- 
wary colonists to swallow it the more readily down." Tyler, op. cif., 343. 

"The "Congress Canvassed," as quoted in Tyler, op. cit., 343. 

^Ubid., 26-27, as quoted in Tyler, op. cit., 344 

^^"A Full Vindication of the Measures of Congress ... in answer to a letter 
. . . of a Westchester Farmer," Hamilton, TF'orks (Lodge ed.), I, 1-50, and 
"The Farmer Refuted," ibid., 51-169. The former appeared late in 1774, the 
latter early in 1775. Tyler, op. cii., I, 384-385. For other passages than that 
quoted bearing on the subject see Hamilton, Works, I, 8-9, 64, 76, 78. 

^mid, 1.68. 



21 ] ON THE EVE OF THE REVOLUTION 21 

the sovereign authority, to prevent its being exercised in an op- 
pressive and despotic way."^^ All he was asking for the colonists 
was a due share in this system of limitation. 

Thomas Paine's "Common Sense, "^^ the greatest Hterary factor 
working for independence in the first half of 1776, was throughout 
a scathing attack upon monarchical government. Its second 
part,^2 "Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession," concentrated 
all of Paine's powers of sarcasm and ridicule upon this one sub- 
ject. ^^ The origin of kingship was in heathenism, its adoption by 
the Hebrews was by no divine guidance — quite the contrary — the 
hereditary principle associated with kingship had generally in- 
flicted stupid rulers upon mankind. As to the peculiar excellence 
claimed for the British type of monarchy, it was contrary to 
reason, for, "The nearer any government approaches to a Re- 
public, the less business there is for a King," and the greater 
waste in supporting such a figurehead! Paine, unintentionally 
no doubt, left a loophole for the erection of an elective monarchy, 
which might furnish later encouragement to men interested in the 
possibility of such a form in America. There may have been 
other patriot leaders than John Adams in 1776 who, secretly at 
least, scorned the writings of Paine.^^ But its unequalled popu- 
larity proved that the general public was ready at that time to 
oppose not only King George but also the institution which he 
represented. 

The Declaration of Independence concentrated its attention 
upon King George and made no statement for or against monarchi- 
cal institutions,^^ but the wholesale destruction of royal emblems^^ 

BOHamilton, Works, I, 76. 

"Published Jan. 10, 1776. Writings of Thomas Paine (Conway ed.), 1, 67, footnote 1. 

^^Compare Richard Frothingham, Rise of the Republic of the United States, All, 

^^" Common Sense" is printed in Paine's Writings, I, 69-120. 

^That John Adams felt thus about Paine may be gathered from his comment, 
Works, II, 153. Perhaps, however, Paine's later career and a possible jealousy on 
the part of Adams as to originating the move for independence influenced the state- 
ment. See ibid., II, 412. 

^Perhaps this was sufficiently explained by the fact that the separation was 
legally based on the idea that George III had violated his contract with his Ameri- 
can subjects, thereby absolving them from further allegiance. Compare Writings 
and Speeches of Daniel Webster (National ed.), I, 303-304; C. M. Walsh, Political 
Science of John Adams, 6. Compare and contrast C. H. Van Tyne, The American 
Revolution ( The American Nation: A History, IX), 84-86. 

**See Ezra Stiles, Diary, entry for Aug. 26, 1776, in transcript, Manuscripts 



22 '^monarchical" TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES [22 

which followed bore witness to at least a momentary detestation of 
monarchy itself. The democratic constitutions adopted by the 
several states, as well as the absence of a strong central govern- 
ment, evidenced the persistence of this attitude. Yet traces 
remain of a preference for monarchy among the revolutionists. 
Some of these traces are indistinct and difficult to explain. For 
example, Joseph Warren in an oration at Boston had said, "But 
if these pacifick measures are ineffectual . . . you will . . . 
press forward until tyranny is trodden under foot; and you have 
fixed your adored Goddess, Liberty, fast by a Brunswick's side, 
on the American throne."^'' The figurative language would pre- 
sent no difficulties but for the phrase, "fast by a Brunswick's 
side," which suggests the orator was content to picture a con- 
tinuance of some sort of monarchy in his country ,^^ even one 
connected with the then ruhng house. 

In a somewhat similar vein was a letter written by John Adams 
in October, 1775. He touched upon the subject in so jocose a 
fashion as to leave one guessing his real attitude. Whatever he 
meant when he said that a plan for a " Continental King, . . . 
a Continental House of Lords, and a Continental House of 
Commons" was "whispered in the Coffee Houses"^^ he meant 
something different from the congressional government in force. 
Another letter by Adams contains the remark that "the colonies 
will have republics for their government, let us lawyers and your 
divine say what we will. "^^ The "divine " referred to was Dr. Zubly 

Division, Library of Congress. (Omitted from published diary.) A good brief ac- 
count of the destruction of the Bowling Green statue of George III is in the Massa- 
chusetts Historical Society Proceedings, 2d ser., IV, 293-294. An exhaustive treatise 
en the use and destruction of royal emblems will be found in the same volume, 239- 
264. 

'^Oration, Mar. 6, 1775, to commemorate the Boston massacre. American 
Archives, 4th sen, II, 43. 

^Contrast with statement in House of Lords, Nov. 10, 1775, that a gentlemen 
who was a large landowner in New England asserted " that the people of that 
Province were full of a levelling, republican spirit,, which would never be rooted 
out till they . . . were compelled to bow under . . . constitutional Govern- 
ment . . . that . . . they were no less hostile against monarchical Government 
than against the rights of the British Parliament." Ibid., 4th ser., VI, 134. 

^^To James Warren, Oct. 28, 1775, Massachusetts Historical Society Collections y 
LXXII, 167. Compare a letter to Mrs. Warren, Jan. 8, 1776, ibid., 201-202, and 
her comment on it, Feb. 7, 1776, ibid., 205-206. 

'"To Archibald Bullock, July 1, 1776, Adams, Works, IX, 414-415. The lines 



23] ON THE EVE OF THE REVOLUTION 23 

of Georgia, a native of the Swiss Republic.^^ Although asso- 
ciated with the Loyalists after 1777 he was earlier on good 
terms with the revolutionists^^ He had once said in the Second 
Continental Congress, **A republican government is little better 
than government of devils. I have been acquainted with it from 
six years old."'''^ There is every reason to believe that he had 
supported his monarchical ideas in many a confidential talk with 
his colleagues in Congress.^^ In the letter quoted, Adams seemed 
to associate himself with Zubly in the matter. It is interesting to 
note that in his ''Thoughts on Government" Adams left a loop- 
hole for a life tenure in the great offices of state. On the other 
hand, he characterized an important expression of monarchical 
views as ** too absurd to be considered twice." On the whole 
the principles which Adams openly supported at the time were 
by no means monarchical.'''^ 

Still another defense of the monarchical principle on the eve of 
the Revolution was one under date of February 28, 1776, in which 
"Rationalis" addressed "To the Inhabitants of Pennsylvania" 
a refutation of the antimonarchical arguments of "Common 
Sense. "^^ This address concerns us because its author professed, 
at least, to be willing to support independence as a last resort. '^^ 
He used biblical citations to prove that monarchy was "not in- 
consistent with the Holy Scriptures" as claimed by "Common 
Sense." He declared that it was "as pleasing to the Almighty, 
if agreeable to the people, as any other form of Government"'^ ^. 
He next pointed out that republics had proved quite as turbulent 
as monarchies, giving concrete examples, both ancient and mod- 
ern.'^^ His conception of a monarchy was apparently based upon 

quoted were to be repeated to Mr. Houston, who with Bullock and Zubly repre- 
sented Georgia in the Second Continental Congress. See ibid.^ II, 422. 

-'mid., II, 421. 

''^Biographical Congressional Directory, 1 136, and National Cy clop aediaoj American 
Biography, III, 212. 

''^Journals of the Continental Congress, III, 491. 

74Adams, Works, II, 423, 

^^See, for example, his letter to General Gates, Works, I, 207. See also 
Walsh, Political Science oj John Adams, ch. II, "Early Democratic Views." 

''^American Archives, 4th ser. , I V, 1 527- 1 530. 

-^Ibid., 1530. For loyalist refutations see Tyler, op. cit., I, 479-481. 

''^American Archives, 4th ser., IV, 1529. 

"'Hbid., 1529-1530. 



24 "monarchical" tendencies in the united states [24 

contract/^ yet he upheld the hereditary principle, using the 
"terrible disorders" of the elective monarchy of Poland as a warn- 
ing against the non-hereditary type.^^ He also was bold enough to 
assert that England's owh republican experiment had ended in 
the "absolute sway" of one man, Oliver Cromwell. ^^ 

**Rationalis" was met on his own ground by a disimpassioned 
address signed **Salus Populi."^^ The main feature in this argu- 
ment was that it admitted the ill success of earlier republics but 
contended that America had unprecedented opportunities for 
success in the adoption of such a form. A somewhat similar 
article a few months later^ emphasized the importance of entirely 
reforming American government, rather than ''patching up" 
the old one, and said that " there must never be any power like 
a Kingly power" in America. ^^ It declared against hereditary 
tenure on the ground that "wisdom is not a birthright," and 
against life tenure because "men's abilities and manners may 
change."^^ 

On the other hand, an important expression of the monarchical 
views hinted at by Adams^^ has been preserved to us in an address 
which first appeared in the spring of 1776.^^ Carter Braxton, 
an aristocratic Virginian, a member of the Continental Congress, 
and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, was thought by 

^"^ American Archives, 4th ser., IV, 1529-1530. 

^mid., 1530. 

^mid., 1530. 

^2" To the People of North- America on the Different Kinds of Government," 
;'/^/^., 4 th ser., V, 180-183. Undated, but there placed under heading "March 
1776." 

84"The Interest of America," unsigned, ibid., 4th ser., VI, 840-843. Classed with 
material for June, 1776. 

^Ibid., 842. 

^Ibid., 843. 

^In his letter to James Warren, above, page 22. 

^^" Address to the Convention of the Colony and Ancient Dominion of Virginia, 
on the subject of Government in general, and recommending a particular form to 
their consideration. By a native of the Colony." Printed in American Archives 
4th ser. VI, 748-754. Originally published in pamphlet form at Philadelphia and 
reprinted June 8, 1776, in the ''Virginia Gazttte" with a view to influencing the 
state constitutional convention. J. Adams, Works, IV, 202, editor's note. 



25] ON THE EVE OF THE REVOLUTION 25 

some to be the author. ^^ Patrick Henry called it a "silly thing"^*^ 
and John Adams said it was "too absurd to be considered twice. "^^ 
Henry admitted, however, that his ''most esteemed republican 
form" of government had "many and powerful enemies" in Vir- 
ginia.®2 Jt Jg difficult to judge how much sympathy the address 
in question aroused^^ among the "Barons of the South," as Adams 
termed the aristocratic Virginians. ^^ It certainly produced little 
practical effect upon the Virginia constitution.^^ Yet its author 
seemed confident that his system was more truly adapted to the 
situation of America than the more purely democratic ones then 
advocated. Should the latter type be adopted, in the excitement 
of the moment, he felt sure it would not prove permanently satis- 
factory. As a result violent efforts would be made to restore the 
former system. ^^ He praised the English constitution, perfected 
"by the vigilance, perseverance, and activity, of innumerable 
martyrs."*^ If any imperfections still remained they could be re- 
moved without the sacrifice of the entire structure. Former re- 
publican experiments were warnings rather than models. ^^ After 
thus preparing the minds of his readers he unfolded before them a 
plan of state government in which the governor was elected by 
the representatives and held office ''during his good behaviour.' '^^ 
The other features of the plan were of a similar nature. As for a 
more general government it would seem he had nothing in mind 
but a Congress with rather extensive powers but with no single 

ssp. Henry to J. Adams, May 20, 1776, Adams, Works, IV, 201-202. Adams sug- 
gested it to be a "joint production of one native of Virginia, and two natives of 
New York." Ibid. IX, 387. For a brief account of Braxton see Appletons^ Cyclopae- 
dia of American Biography I, 361. 

90Patrick Henry to John Adams, May 20, 1776, Adams, Works, IV, 201-202. 

^Hbid., IX, 387. 

82/^/^., IV, 201-202. 

^^At any rate, Braxton was a member of the first house of delegates under the 
new constitution. Appletons' Cyclopaedia, 361. For a New York connection see 
John Jay to Edward Rutledge, July 6, 1776, American Archives, 5th sen, I, 
41. 

«J. Adams, Works, I, 207; IX, 358, 388. 

95See charts in Channing, History of the United States, III, 459-462. 

^American Archives, 4th ser., VI, 749. 

^Ibid., 750. 

^mid., 751-752. 

^^Ibid., ISl-lSZ. (The italics are not in the original.) 



26 '^monarchical" tendencies in the united states [26 

executive head.^*^° As a whole, however, his pamphlet is of con- 
siderable significance to a study of "monarchical" tendencies in 
the period. 

Apparently some fears were confessed in 1776 that there was 
"not publick virtue enough in the country" as basis for a republic.^°^ 
Obviously the party in power generally discountenanced such 
fears. Thanks to the general trend of events and to the eloquent 
arguments of "Common Sense" republican enthusiasm rose high 
in 1776.^*^^ Yet the following passage, written near the end of 
that eventful year, is at least suggestive: " If I may be permitted, 
then, to deliver my opinion of the genius of the Americans I shall 
say it is of a monarchical spirit; this is natural from the govern- 
ment they have ever lived under. It is therefore impossible to 
found a simple Republic in America, Another reason that oper- 
ates very strongly against such a government is the great dis- 
tinction of persons, and difference in their estates or property, 
which cooperates strongly with the genius of the people in favour 
of monarchy. "^°^ 

This brings us to the end of the pre-revolutionary period. 
Monarchical institutions had become extremely unpopular. Anti- 
monarchical forms of government were to have their trial. But if 
they were found wanting might not some men, remembering the 
seeming popularity of kingship in the earlier days, direct their 
efforts towards setting up an American kingship? Succeeding 
chapters of this study will answer this question in the affirmative. 

^^^American Archives, 4th ser., VI, 753-754. 

lo^See J. Adams to Mrs. Warren, Jan. 8, 1776, cited above p. 22, also S. Mc- 
Clintock to William Whipple, Greenland, N. H., Aug. 2, 1776. American Archives^ 
5th ser., I, 734. 

io2See above, pages 21-22. 

^"^Signed "Farmer" and written at "Philadelphia, Nov. 5, 1776." American 
Archives y 5th ser.. Ill, 518. The article concerned government for the individual 
states but seemed also applicable to a general government. Compare letter by 
a New Hampshire man (in same volume, p. 1226), written in December, 
1776. 



CHAPTER II 

MONARCHICAL TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES 

DURING THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR: THE 

PLAN OF COUNT DE BROGLIE 

Thomas Jefferson once remarked parenthetically of certain 
American army officers that they were ** trained to monarchy by 
military habits."^ The utiHzation of the army as a basis for mon- 
archical institutions was, indeed, the common factor in several 
propositions. The first of these was of French origin and centered 
around Charles Francois, Count de Broglie.^ The count had 
been a trusted secret agent of Louis XV in that monarch's attempt 
to put a French prince on the Polish throne as well as in other 
projects. The prestige which he gained by his early successes in 
the Seven Years' War was somewhat impaired by his later mis- 
fortunes in that conflict. Circumstances conspiring against him, 
he was for some time a much neglected personage, so far as court 
favor and public employment were concerned. By the eve of the 
American Revolution his fortunes had improved, but hardly 
enough to satisfy a man of his character and previous career.^ 
He seems to have been an inveterate enemy of England,^ a great 
lover of glorious schemes,^ and a man of much ambition.^ 

Preface to "The Anas," Jefferson, Writings (Ford ed.j, I, 157. Compare Col- 
onel Nicola's assertion, below, 45. See also below, page 40. 

*Born 1719, died 1781. For brief notices see Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th 
ed.), IV, 626; P. Larousse, Grand Dictionnaire Universe/ Franfais, IV, 1300; F. Kapp, 
Li/g of John Kalb, 80; H. Doniol, Histoire de la Participation de la France ^ 
VEtahlxssement d'Jmerique, I, 636-637. A longer account is found in pp. 389-404 
of an article by C. J. Stille, "Comte de Broglie, the Proposed Stadtholder of Ameri- 
ca;" Pennsylvania Magazine of History y XI, 369-405. 

'See Doniol, op. cit., t, 636. 

*See his "Memoire" to Louis XVI, Doniol, op. cit., 11,670-673, and, for English 
comments. Lord Stormont to Lord Weymouth, Feb. 6, 1777, B. F. Stevens, Fac- 
similes of Manuscripts in European Archives Relating to America, no. 1429. 

^Such as securing the crown of Poland for a French prince (Stille, op. cit., 
392-393), or sending an expedition to invade England, etc. (Doniol, op. cit., 
II, 671-677). See also Kapp, op. cit., 80. 

^Doniol, op. cit., II, 670; Kapp, op. cit., 80, 93; Still6, op. cit., 389- 
391; Deane Papers, I, 429-431. 

27 



28 "monarchical tendencies in the united states [28 

On November 5, 1776, the Count made two calls upon Silas 
Deane, American Agent at Paris. With him he brought Baron 
de Kalb/ a German in French service, who had toured America 
in 1768,^ and wished to return there to aid the revolutionists. 
Kalb had been assistant quartermaster-general on Broglie's staff 
in the late war and had found in his superior officer a generous 
patron.^ Thus it was natural that he was selected as chief 
assistant in the plan which Broglie had at heart, and was used to 
present it to Deane. There is double proof that this presentation 
was accomplished by or before December fifth. On that day 
Kalb wrote to the Count reporting "good progress"^^ and on the 
next Deane wrote to the Secret Committee of Congress as follows :^^ 
**I submit one thought to you: Whether if you could engage a 
great general of the highest character in Europe, such, for instance, 
as Prince Ferdinand, Marshal Broglio,^^ or others of equal rank to 
take the lead of your armies, whether such a step would not be 
politic, as it would give a character and credit to your military 
and strike perhaps a greater panic in our enemies. I only suggest 
the thought and leave you to confer with the Baron de Kalb on 
the subject at large. "^^ The specific proposition, as stated a few 
days later, centered about the suggested installation of Broglie 
as generalissimo of the American forces, with absolute military 
powers, and, perhaps, some civil authority. He was to be sub- 
ordinate to Congress and to hold his position for no more than three 
years. 

The plan and its attendant circumstances make a strong appeal 

Weane Papers {NtwYork Historical Society Collections, XIX-XXII),I, 342. 

Ubid., I, 342; Kapp, op. cit., 50-51, 68. 

^Kapp, op. cit., 38, 79-80. 

^"This report was acknowledged by Broglie in a letter quoted by Kapp, 0^. r//., 
94. 

^Deane Papers, I, 404-405; F.Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence of the United 
States, 392; etc. A short treatise on the aflfair, containing a number of quotations 
from the original correspondence, is found in Wharton, op. cit., 392-396. 

^The editor of the Deane Papers comments, "Deane confounds the Count 
Broglio with his brother, the Marshal and Duke," I, 404, n. 

^^See letter from Broglie to Kalb, December 11, 1776, and enclosure by 
Kalb, in a letter to Deane six days later, Kapp, op. cit., 94-97; also in Doniol, 
op. cit., the chapter, "Le Stathouderat du Comte de Broglie;" II, 50-84, especially 
62-74. For the enclosure mentioned see Deane Papers, I, 427-431; Stevens, 
Facsimiles, no. 604. 



29] DURING THE REVOLUTION 29 

to the imagination and tempt one to unlimited conjecture. For 
instance, it is quite conceivable that Count Broglie's previous 
endeavors to set a French prince on the Polish throne^^ suggested 
the idea of an elective monarchy for America. Broglie had in 
mind a man of the rank of "the Prince of Nassau" (stadtholder 
in the Netherlands) as meeting the requirements for his American 
generalissimo.^^ If an elective monarchy should be installed the 
generalissimo would enjoy an unrivalled opportunity to win the 
"election." But with no actual proof of such ulterior motives it 
is more profitable to consider the potentialities of the plan itself 
and the impression it probably made upon those who knew of its 
existence. 

America's supreme need for a leader who could unite factions, 
attract a brave and efficient personal following, and order all 
things by his own power, ^*^ justified to Broglie the granting of the 
"most favorable stipulations" to induce the proper man to devote 
himself to the task. "Favorable stipulations" he defined as the 
union, in one person, of the "position of a general and president 
of the council of war with the title of generalissimo, field marshal, 
etc."^^ No civil powers were demanded "with, perhaps, the single 
exception of the political negotiations with foreign powers. "^^ 
The elasticity injected by the terms "etc." and "perhaps" is 
rendered more significant by rereading one of the opening sentences 
of the letter, "A military and political leader is wanted,"-^^ noting 
the coordination of "political" with "military" as it stands 
there. In the formal presentation of the plan Kalb expressly left 
it to Franklin and Deane "to extend" as well as to change or 
carry out his propositions. ^° 

A further point, one connected with repubHcan security, is of 
pecuHar interest to the present study. Broglie, it appears, very 
much feared that the Americans might suspect that monarchical 
ambitions lurked behind his plan. Thus it was that he in- 

^^Stille, op. cit., 393. See also above, p. 27. 

^Kapp, op, cit., 9S. 

^^Ibid., 95. Broglie asserted that even "in a good European army every- 
thing depends upon the selection of a good commander-in-chief; how much 
more in a cause where everything has yet to be selected and adjusted." Ibid., 96-97. 

^Ubid., 96. 

^mid., 95. 

^mid.,9S. • 

^^Beane Papers, \,A2\. 



30 ^'monarchical" tendencies in the united states [30 

structed his agent to be "particularly explicit" in **the assurance 
of the man's return to France at the end of three years" since this 
assurance would "remove every apprehension in regard to the 
powers to be conferred, and . . . even the semblance of an 
ambitious design to become the sovereign of the new republic. "^^ 
Again, he warned Kalb to "content" himself "with stipulating 
for a military authority for the person in question. "22 Finally 
he directed that these powers "should be limited in no respect, 
except in so far as to remove all danger of a too extensive use of 
the civil authority, or of ambitious schemes for dominion over the 
republic. "23 

Kalb, in his formal statement of the project suggested, inten- 
tionally or otherwise, the expansion of which the plan was capable. 
For one thing he drew a clear-cut comparison between the situ- 
ation of the United States and that of the Netherlands "when 
they were yet groaning under the . . . tyranny of their sover- 
eigns." On this basis he suggested "that the same conduct which 
was so advantageous to the republican establishment of the Low 
Countries would produce the same effect in the present case."^^ 
He emphasized the strength of the personal following which his 
candidate would be able to command.^^ Moreover, he bore 
witness to the ambitious character of Broglie, as, for example, 
by his suggestion that the generalissimo's return to Europe be 
ensured "in a more precise manner" by a treaty clause securing 

Broglie's "elevation ... to the dignity of Duke and Peer of 
France. "26 

Kalb's connection with the plan is the more significant because 
of his mission to America at an earlier date. In reahty an agent 
for the French minister Choiseul and sent out to investigate re- 
ports that a revolt was brewing in the English colonies2^ he had 
posed as "a German travelling for his pleasure. "2^ His command 
of the EngHsh language and his abihty to adapt himself to any 

2iKapp, op. cit., 96. 
^Ibid., 96. 
■^Ibid., 97. 

^Deane Papers, I, 427. 
"^Ibid., 429. 
2«/^/^., 429-431. 
27Kapp, op. cit., 46-51, 68-69. 

28Quoted from letter of Colonel N. Rogers, Jan. 24, 1810, ibid., 315. (Rogers 
assigned too early a date to the visit.) 



3lJ DURING THE REVOLUTION 3 1 

society had probably enabled him to collect evidence "every- 
where, from the drawing-room down to the grog-shop. "^^ An 
American friend^^ testified that Kalb had often told him of the 
observations made during this trip. According to this testimony 
Kalb had been struck by "the universal prepossession" in favor 
of England, and "the almost instinctive hostility" to France. 
On the basis of these observations he had later asserted that noth- 
ing but the "highly injudicious and short-sighted conduct of the 
British ministry" could have caused the colonists to revolt. ^^ 
Kalb's official reports, made within the year, were somewhat 
similar. 22 They did, however, include a prophecy that American 
independence would eventually be declared,^^ though they pre- 
dicted a peaceful conclusion to the controversy then raging.^ 
They positively denied that, in case of a resort to force, the 
colonists would be wiUing to accept French aid.^^ It will be re- 
called that in 1768, the year of Kalb's visit, the Americans were 
still professing loyalty to the British King and reverence for 
British institutions, and casting the blame for existing conflicts 
upon the British ministry.^^ 

In the face of such observations how could Kalb support the 
project of Count de Broglie? Perhaps he did not realize the 
extent of its possibilities. Perhaps he believed the plan imprac- 
ticable, even in its most limited application, but was unwilling to 
oppose his friend and patron.^^ Yet it is conceivable that he con- 
sidered the plan practicable and advantageous to all concerned. 
As for the old antipathy to the French it would seem to be sup- 
planted by petitions for French aid.^^ The American Declaration 
of Independence had forborne to attack monarchical institutions, 
despite its denunciation of the ruling King. Thus a European 

29Kapp, op. cit., 315. 

"^Colonel Rogers, He had been aide to Kalb at Valley Forge and elsewhere. 
Ibid., 315, n. 
^Ubid., 315-316. 
^Ibid., 286-295. 
^Ibid,, 287. 
^Ibid., 288. 
^Ibid., 288. 
3«Above, p. 13. 

'^On the relations of Kalb with Broglie see, for example, Kapp, op, cit. 86-87. 
^^Such as those being made by Silas Deane. 



32 ^'monarchical^' tendencies in the united states [32 

might easily fail to realize the reaction against centralized power 
which had followed the Declaration.^^ 

Let us now turn to the fate of Broglie's plan in American hands. 
The available papers of Silas Deane contain no positive indication 
of his own opinion on the matter.^^ Contemporary characteriza- 
tions of Deane were so influenced by the factional quarrels in 
which he was involved that it is difiicult to estimate his probable 
attitude.^^ If Deane was really vain, ambitious, and easily dazzled 
by the brilliancy of the French capital,^^ j^g ^^^y have been a 
convert to the cause of Broglie. The thought that the plan was, 
perchance, secretly favored by the French Court may have led 
Deane to believe it could be put into effect. Kalb's support of 
the plan, in view of his personal observations in America, may 
have given it weight with Deane. The tendency to think the 
American cause hopeless, later evidenced by his support of Eng- 
lish conciliatory proposals,^^ may have led him at this time to 
believe the American cause could not succeed unless it made use 
of French aid of the type suggested. 

A more probable explanation is suggested by a report from 
Deane to John Jay respecting some supplies he was forwarding. 
He advised that they be examined for impositions, since he him- 
self had been unable to examine them, they being guaranteed by 
"persons in such station" that a show of suspicion might have 
ruined his affairs.^^ He wrote in the same letter that he hoped 
the officers sent would "be agreeable," adding that they "were 
recommended by the Ministry" and were "really in their army," 
though this "must be a secret. "^^ Franklin later wrote a defence 
of Deane which, though referring specifically to the affair of some 
French officers, may have had the Broglie plan also in mind. 

s^This reaction was to be seen in the state constitutions and the organization ot 
the Continental Congress. Thomas Pownall's suggestion of a British stadtholder 
for the colonies (as part of his plan for imperial reorganization) is very interesting 
in this connection. See Pownall, Administration of the British Colonies, II, 84-86. 
He believed this idea incorporated in the Albany plan of union. 

^°0n the fate of two lost volumes, see Deane Papers, I, intro., p. vii, and Jefferson, 
Writings (Washington ed.), II, 454-455. 

*iC. F. Adams, Life of John Adams, 280. (Vol. I of J. Adams, Life and Works) 
. ^Ibid.,1^9. 

'^Deane Papers, I, pp. xii-xiii. 

44Dec. 3, 1776, /^/^.,I, 395. 

^Ibid., 397. 



33 J DURING THE REVOLUTION 33 

Its main point was that only a person on the spot could "know 
the infinite Difficulty of resisting the powerful Solicitations here 
of great Men, who if disobligd might have it in their Power to 
obstruct the Supplies he [Deane] was then obtaining. "^ 

Apparently no direct evidence remains of the reception of the 
plan in America. ^'^ The recall of Deane in 1777 and the rejection 
of most of the officers sent by him^^ throw some light on the situa- 
tion. The orders^^ for Deane's return were noncommittal as to 
the reason, but an undated motion based the recall on Deane's 
indiscretion in engaging French officers. ^° If Congress could not 
comply with such engagements "without deranging the Army, 
and thereby injuring, at this critical Juncture, the American 
Cause,"^^ how much less would Congress have accepted the 
Broglie plan! 

Little evidence appears as to the reaction of the general public 
to the plan. Deane's proposition of December 6, 1776 was printed 
in a Pennsylvania newspaper, February 16, 1779. ^^ This was done 
through the bad faith of Thomas Paine who had access to the 
letter when secretary to the Committee for Foreign Affairs.^^ 
The very manner of its publication probably lessened its effect. 
Samuel Adams said, speaking of another episode in Paine's attack 

^'Franklin, Writings (Smyth ed.), VII, 77. It will be recalled that Franklin and 
Arthur Lee were made joint commissioners with Deane late in 1776. Up to that 
time Deane was our sole representative in France. See C. Isham, "A Short Ac- 
count of the Life and Times of Silas Deane," American Historical Association 
Papers, III, 41-43. 

^"See Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, I, 396. 

*8Kapp, op. cit., 306. 

^-^Resolution of Nov. 21, 1111 , Journals of the Continental Congress, IX, 946-947. 
Order of Dec. 8, 1777, ibid., 1008-1009. The activity of Deane's friends in Con- 
gress was said to account for the character of the recall. See S. Adams, Writings, 
IV, 71. 

^°Quoted in Journals, VIII, 605, n. 2. This probably was made on or about Aug. 
5, 1777. Compare S. Adams, Writings, IV, 14. 

^^Journals, VIII, 605, n. 2. A very practical reason for this attitude was found in 
the threatened resignations of such officers as Generals Greene and Knox in case 
they were superseded by French officers. Journals, VIII, 537; Washington, Writ- 
ings (Ford ed.), V, 404-406, n. Compare S. Adams, Writings, IV, 14. 

^^Deane Papers, III, 361-362. (The paper mentioned was the Pennsylvania 
Packet) 

^his committee was successor to the Committee of Secret Correspondence. 
See Journals of the Continental Congress, VIJ, 274. 



34 ^^MONARCHICAL"'^ TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES [34 

on Deane, that its nature was such that Paine's "prudence . . . 
and even his Veracity was called in Question . . . and his 
Authority & Influence as a Writer of facts lessend."^ Very 
likely the letter in question was suppressed as much as possible 
through a fear that its exploitation might anger the French 
court.^^ 

John Adams in 1778 recalled having heard of the French 
project in Congress the preceding year. Curiously enough he 
connected it with Marshal Maillebois.^^ Having heard that this 
gentleman and Marshal Broglie^^ were reputed to be "the two 
most intriguing men in France," he wrote, "I was the more dis- 
posed to believe it of the former, because I knew of his intrigue 
with Mr. Deane to be placed over the head of General Washing- 
ton in the command in chief of our American army."^^ A chance 
remark by Vergennes was noted by Adams as confirmation "of 
the design at court, of getting the whole command of America 
into their own hands, and a luminous commentary on Mr. Deane's 
letters, which I had seen and heard read in Congress, and on his 
mad contract with M. du Coudray and his hundred officers. "°^ 
Adams recorded his own attitude as follows: "My feelings, on 
this occasion, were kept to myself, but my reflection was, 'I will 
be buried in the ocean, or in any other manner sacrificed, before 

"S. Adams, Writings, IV, 134. Contrast the statement by Charles Lee, Lee 
Papers, III {New York Historical Society Collections, VI), 344, n. Lee stated that 
Deane had been accused of having "made some overtures to Prince Ferdinand of 
Brunswick, to accept the command of the American army," the very idea of which 
appeared "so very ridiculous" to "the foreign officers . . . acquainted with the 
prince's reputation as a soldier" that a mention of it threw them "into violent fits 
of laughter." 

"S. Adams, who probably saw the letter of Dec. 6, 1776 (see Journals of the 
Continental Congress, VIII, 596), wrote that sitting "by a fire Side "with a friend he 
might tell things about Deane which he dared not write. S. Adams, Writings, 
IV, 111. 

'^M. Dubois (Broglie's secretary) hinted at the existence of competition for the 
position Broglie desired. Letter to Kalb, Dec. 17, 1776, Kapp, op. cit., 92. 

*^The Marshal (or Duke) de Broglie does not appear to have had any share in 
his brother's project. It is worthy of note that Kalb gave Adams a letter of in- 
troduction to Count de Broglie when Adams was about to depart for France in 
1777. J.AdRms, Works, YU, 9. 

^Hbid., Ill, 146. 

^mid.. Ill, 146. See also Stille, op. cit., 2)16-211, n. 1. 



35] DURING THE REVOLUTION 35 

I will voluntarily put on the chains of France, when I am strug- 
gling to throw off those of Great Britain."^^ 

This probably expressed the sentiments of all, or practically 
all, of the Americans who heard of the Broglie plan. While they 
professed to feel much gratitude to the French King^^ it did not 
extend, in general, to French officers. So far as any resultant 
exaltation of kingship was concerned this admiration for the 
French King was counterbalanced by the growing conviction that 
the British King, and not the ministry, was responsible for the 
war.^2 Doubtless the American poet, Freneau, writing in 1778, 
was warmly seconded when he said that nothing good could be 
said in behalf of kings in general, despite- occasional good kings, 
and that, 

"Though one was wise, and one Goliath slew. 
Kings are the choicest curse that man e'er knew."^^ 

If Count de Broglie^^ continued to cherish the project he must 
have been disillusioned, late in 1778, by the following letter from 
his chief agent in the affair: 

"They [the Americans] are insultingly vain towards any nation 
but their own. . . . they have established their sovereignty 
alone without help (whereas they owe it to France) against the 
bravest and most powerful of nations; their General Washington 
is the first of all heroes ancient and modern; Alexander, Conde, 
Broglie, Ferdinand and the King of Prussia are not to be com- 
pared to him. . . . It is not only the lower classes; — clever 
people, or those passing for such, have the same opinion, and this 
is said so often, that Washington believes it himself. "^^ 

In the summer of 1780 an offer of negotiations looking towards 

60J. Adams, Works, III, 146-147. 

6^See Journals of the Continental Congress, XII, 1139; J. Bowdoin to Franklin, 
May 1, 1780, Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, 2d ser., VIII, 285, 290; 
and President of Congress to Franklin, Oct., 1781, Papers of the Continental Con- 
gress, vol. 16, President's Letter Book, 1781-1787, Manuscripts Division, Library of 
Congress. 

^J. Armstrong to W. Armstrong, Feb. 26, 178-, William Armstrong Papers 
(Force Transcripts), Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress; Franklin to D. 
Hartley, Feb. 3,"l779, Franklin, Writings (Smyth ed.), VII, 226, 227. 

^^uoted in Tyler, Literary History of the American Revolution, II, 253. 

*^He did continue to plot against the British. See above, footnote 4, chapter ii. 

•^Kalb to Broglie, Nov. 7, 1778, Stevens, Facsimiles, no. 1987. 



36 ^^monarchical" tendencies in the united states [36 

reunion with the mother country was made to the Vermonters.^^ 
The offer appeared at an opportune time since the Green Moun- 
tain state was in a critical situation in 1780, and, indeed, during 
the following year. Thwarted in attempts to gain admittance 
to the Confederation,^^ threatened with a renewal of hostilities 
by her rivals New York, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts,^^ 
and peculiarly open to military invasion from Canada,^^ the state 
stood in need of some new expedient. 

The offer was accepted by a small group of leading Vermonters, 
such as Governor Chittenden and Ethan and Ira Allen,^^ and 
the resulting negotiations were terminated only by the end of the 
war.'^^ As carried on by the Vermonters their main characteris- 
tics may be listed as follows: First, a prolongation of the affair 
by repeated delays and postponements;^^ second, as a chief excuse 
for such a prolongation, the plea that only a cautious and gradual 
preparation would bring the mass of the people to the point of 
accepting the plan;^^ third, protestations of sincerity to the British 
on the one hand,'^'' and on the other insinuations to the Americans 
that the real object was to deceive the enemy and to promote the 

^^Vermont Historical Society Collections, II, 59-61, General Haldimand, Gover- 
nor of Canada, was the chief British intermediary. The sources for a study of 
this episode are found in the"Haldimand Papers" and supplementary data printed 
in the Vermont Historical Society Collections, II, 59-366. Some of the more im- 
portant secondary accounts are in the volume just cited, pages 367-391, and in 
Ira Allen, History of Vermont (as reprinted in Vermont Historical Society Col- 
lections, I), 414-468; B.H. Hall, History of Eastern Vermont, 380-381, 412-414, 503, 
721-724; J.L.Heaton, The Story of Vermont, 81-85, 87; S. Williams, History of Ver- 
mont, \l,lQ\-in. 

^Wermont Historical Society Collections, I, 373, 381, 401, 409, 452, 464; II, 24, 
200; Williams, op. cit., II, 217-218. 

^Wermont Historical Society Collections, II, 30, 61, 86; also I, 330, 399-400, 
419-420. 

^Hbid., II, 61, 86; and I, 419-420. 

'■^Principally Colonel Ira Allen, Governor Chittenden, Major Fay, General 
Ethan Allen, and a few others, possibly including the majority of the governor's 
council. See ibid., I, 428; II, 128, 159, 367. See also Report on Canadian Archives, 
1889, 58. 

^^General Haldimand's last letter on the subject of Vermont was dated March 
25, 1783. Vermont Historical Society Collections, II, 335. 

72Forexamples see /^/^.,II, 109-116, 122-123, 128, 143, 159, 191, and especially 335. 

-^Hbid., II, 109-110, 112, 114, 122, 128, 143, 159, 172. 

'^'^Ibid., II, 113, 128, 129, 158. The British apparently doubted this sincerity 
at times. See ibid., II, 145, 148-149, 152, 158, 162, 179, 265, 273. 



37] DURING THE REVOLUTION 37 

common cause by halting incursions from the north; ^^ fourth, as 
the fundamental justification of their activities the assertion that 
the well-being of Vermont as a free and independent state, un- 
hampered by New York or any other usurping rival, was a more 
cherished object with Vermonters than even the success of the 
revolutionary cause, in case the latter should not assure the 
former. '^^ 

The popular interpretation of these dealings has represented 
them as legitimate strategic deceptions of war, cleverly employed 
against the BritishJ^ But the lack, at the time, of a long-standing 
ideal of national existence, and the lack of cordiality towards 
Vermont on the part of the other states and Congress^^ give some 
basis for a different conclusion. While there is no reason to be- 
lieve that the negotiators preferred Vermont's union with Great 
Britain, even as a separate province, to admittance, as a ''free and 
independent state," to the Confederation^^ it is quite possible that 
some of the leading citizens of Vermont contemplated a return to 
the old allegiance as a last resort. In that event they expected 
support, not only from the Tories of the state but also among 
some of the rebels who had no preference for the "tyranny" of 

''^Vermont Historical Society Collections^ II, 131, 135, 203. Compare 255. Ver- 
mont profited, during the remainder of the war, by what amounted to an immunity 
from attack by the British who wished to do nothing that would endanger the 
final success of the negotiations. Williams, History of Vermont, II, 215-216. 

''^Vermont Historical Society Collections, II, 109, 110-111, 117, 123, 128, 143, 
191, 200, especially 117 and 123 and 158. Compare ibid., SI, n. 1, 151, 200, 202, 
265. B. H. Hall, in his History of Eastern Vermont, 413-414, presents some in- 
teresting anecdotes bearing on this point. 

'^Such treatment may be found in any of the accounts cited above, p. 26, n. 66, 
with the possible exception of Ira Allen's History of Vermont. 

''^Governor Chittenden besought military cooperation from various other states 
on the score that one of the alternatives for the Vermonters was to ''be under the 
disagreeable necessity of making the best terms with the British that may be in their 
power" as any state might do "separately considered from their union." Vermont 
Historical Society Collections, II, 6, 34. 

^^They undoubtedly hoped that the realization that Vermont might renew her 
old allegiance to Great Britain would induce Congress to treat the state with more 
consideration than formerly. Ibid., II, 9, 23-34, 148, 158; and I, 429. Compare 
and contrast Ethan Allen's assertions to Lord Dorchester in 1788, Report on Can- 
adian Archives, 1890, State Papers, Calendar, 211. 



38 "monarchical" tendencies in the united states [38 

Congress over the tyranny of Parliament and the King.^'' The 
situation of a royal province, with ** every prerogative and immun- 
ity which is promised to other provinces," provided for a measure 
of local autonomy^^ which might appear attractive to Vermont, 
more eligible alternatives failing. 

On the other hand, too much emphasis can hardly be put upon 
the conclusion that the mass of the people of Vermont were un- 
doubtedly opposed to reunion with Great Britain. Their own 
actions, the statements of Allen and the other negotiators, and the 
final opinion of Lord Haldimand all confirm this view.^^ jj^^ 
latter's comment to Sir Henry Clinton, in October, 1781, is to 
the point. After stating that his "suspicions of Allen's party" 
are "almost, if not entirely, removed" he continued as follows: 
'*. . . I see, with much concern, that the wished for revolution 
very little depends upon their^^ interest, at least as things are at 
present circumstanced. The prejudice of a great majority of 
the populace, and the prevailing influence of Congress, are too 
powerful to admit of a chance, (within any given time from one 
to three years,) by negotiation."^^ 

Most significant to the present study is the fact that the nego- 
tiators made no special point of the superiority of republican to 
monarchical government. Instead they weighed their practical 
difficulties with Great Britain against those with their neighbors 
and the Confederation, without throwing theoretical advantages 
or disadvantages into the scale on either side.^^ 

80Compare Vermont Historical Society Collections, II, 110, 117, 123, 158; I^ 
417. B. H. Hall states that the anger of the Vermonters against Congress rose so 
high after the congressional resolutions of December 5th, 1782, that many of a 
group at Westminster "damned the Congress, and for the toast drank their con- 
fusion, and the health of King George the Third of England." Hall, History of 
Eastern Vermont, 478. 

8^The French consul Crevecoeurin a letter from Boston, July 27, 1787, expressed 
his belief that "les Vermontois n'y attachent plus la meme importance" as formerly 
to a recognition by Congress of their independence. Letter to the Duke of Har- 
court, C. Hippeau, Le Gouvernement de Normandie, III, 141-142. Ira Allen, in 
the negotiations in question, urged neutrality as the best stand for Vermont for 
the duration of the war. Vermont Historical Society Collections, II, 110, 

82For a variety of evidence on this point see ibid., I, ^2>1, 460; II, 7, 77-80, 130„ 
and especially 150, 179; also Williams, History of Vermont, II, 214-215. 

^^The reference is to the men of "Allen's party." 

^*Vermont Historical Society Collections, II, 179. 

"^Apparently and perhaps actually they upheld the dictum expressed in a couplet 



39] DURING THE REVOLUTION 39 

The American victory at Yorktown and especially the return of 
peace which it forecast, operated powerfully to check whatever 
monarchical tendencies may have existed in Vermont. ^^ Freed 
from the fear of military aggression, without the heavy burden of 
war debt under which her neighbors groaned, Vermont entered 
upon a period of peace and prosperity which, for a time, lessened 
her desire for admission to equal cooperation with the thirteen 
confederated states. ^^ But the cessation of serious military ac- 
tivities brought to a head difficulties in another quarter, namely, 
the military encampment at Newburgh. The tendency to exalt 
General Washington, noticeable during the latter years of the 
War,^^ was about to reach an astounding climax in propositions 
to erect an American monarchy with Washington at its head. 
These propositions will be discussed in the following chapter. 

by Pope which Ethan Allen is said to have had on the tip of his tongue [though he 
thundered it forth in quite a different connection than the case above noted] : 
"For forms of government, let fools contest, 
What e'er is best administer'd, is best." 
B. H. Hall tells this anecdote in his History of Eastern Vermont, 342-343. 

References were made, on the Vermont side, to the "Whig" principles of many 
of the Vermonters as a reason for delay in the negotiations (see for example Ver- 
mont Historical Society Collections, I, 435), but these principles were not made a 
point of defense or argument, unless the passages in the same volume, pages 117 
and 123, be considered such, and these are not necessarily antimonarchical. 

^Ibid., II, 191, 251, 335; Report on Canadian Archives, 1889, 53, 58. 

Nevertheless, even after news of peace had been received, the governor and coun- 
cil of Vermont apparently sought the advice of the Canadian governor as to the 
best course for Vermont to follow. See Ira Allen's account, Vermont Historical 
Society Collections, I, 467-468. An attempt to revive the reunion movement was 
made during the last months of Vermont's campaign to become the "fourteenth 
state." See below, pages 110-114. 

^For assertions as late as 1794 that Vermont would not stand with the rest of 
the United States in case of war against England but would "support a neutral- 
ity" or "make the best bargain they can for themselves" see respectively "Gover- 
nor Simcoe to Mr. Dundas" {Report on Canadian Archives, 1889, 57), and "State- 
ment by Mr. Jarvis" {Hid., 58). These assertions were based on remarks of 
"very respectable people of Vermont." 

^^Illustrated by the letter from Kalb to Broglie, above, page 35, and by the fol- 
lowing: 

Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, VII, 167; New Jersey Archives, 
2d series, II, 135-137; "Belknap Papers," I {Massachusetts Historical Society 
Collections, 5th ser., II), 91, 300; Humphreys, Life of David Humphreys, I, 242; 
Charles Lee, Papers, III, 322, 372, 400-401; Massachusetts Historical Society 
Collections, 4th ser., X, 804. 



CHAPTER III 

MONARCHICAL TENDENCIES AT THE CLOSE OF THE 
REVOLUTIONARY WAR: THE PLAN OF COLONEL 
NICOLA 

Probably the most dangerous problem during the months of 
uncertainty immediately following the Yorktown campaign was 
the unpaid and discontented army which had won the war. It 
has been said that **in the spring of 1782, the army would have 
made Washington king."^ Lack of complete evidence may for- 
ever make impossible a final test of the truth of such a statement, 
but some definite conclusions may be drawn from the material 
available. Jefferson, ever alert to detect ** monarchical" tenden- 
cies, believed that there had been **a cabal of the officers of the 
army who proposed to establish a monarchy and to propose it to 
General Washington.^'^ Again he wrote: **Some officers of the 
army, as it has always been said and believed . . . trained to 
monarchy by military habits, are understood to have proposed 
to Genl. Washington ... to assume himself the crown, on the 
assurance of their support."^ He declared that "Steuben and 
Knox have ever been named as the leading agents"* and further 
impHcated *'Rufus King and some few civil characters" in the 
plot.^ Washington "frowned indignantly at the proposition, 
[according to the information which got abroad,] . . . . " The 
supporters of the intrigue "never dared openly to avow it," 
knowing that popular opinion would oppose it.^ Probably Jeffer- 
son had in mind rumors which had developed about the New- 
burgh Address and its attendant circumstances. But the most 

^C. L. Becker, Beginnings of the American People {The Riverside History of the 
United States, I), 273. Compare J. Fiske, Critical Period of American History, 
107; R. Hildreth, History of the United States, II, 421-422; and J. Sparks, Writings 
of Washington, VIII,300-301,301-302,n.;alsoW. C. Ford's edition of Washington's 
Writings, X, 22-24, n. 

^Notes on Marshall's Life of Washington, Jefferson, Writings (Ford ed.), IX, 
262, n. 1. 

^Preface to "The Anas," Jefferson, ibid.^ I, 157. 

<Ibid.,l,\Sl. 

mid., IX, 262, n. 1. 

^Ibid. 

40 



41 ] AT THE CLOSE OF THE REVOLUTION 4I 

definite and unequivocal monarchical propositions that have ever 
come to light are those made by Colonel Lewis Nicola in his 
letter to Washington May 22, 1782.7 

Colonel Nicola was an Irishman by birth. Some time after 
rising to the rank of major in the British army he came to Phila- 
delphia. This was about 1766, a period when a newcomer would 
probably have been impressed by the idea that the King — and 
kingship — were cherished by the Americans. He became an 
officer in the revolutionary army and was respected for his ac- 
tivities, especially as an organizer.^ He had occasion, several 
times, to address General Washington in behalf of himself or as 
spokesman for other officers.^ The courteous attention he re- 
ceived encouraged him ^^ to approach Washington on the subject 
of an American monarchy. He explained that he had previously 
kept his ideas on the subject ''within [his] own breast" because 
"Republican bigots [would] certainly consider [his] opinions as 
heterodox, and the maintainer thereof as meriting fire & faggots." 
He was confiding them now to Washington only in the strictest 
confidence and with the expectation of possible disapproval on 
the part of the latter, for, as he put it, "By freely communicating 
them to your Excellency I am persuaded I run no risk, & that, tho 
disapproved of, I need not apprehend their ever being disclosed 
to my prejudice."^^ On the other hand, in begging Washington 
to suspend judgment till he should have gone through "the 
whole, & not to judge of it by parts,"^^ Nicola certainly acknowl- 
edged a hope that Washington's final judgment might favor his 
propositions. 

In explaining why he was broaching the matter at that particular 
time Nicola wrote: 

"Possibly the event I forsee, may not, if at all, take place for a 
considerable time, but as that is uncertain, the purpose of the 

'This is the date assigned by the authorities of the Library of Congress, Manus- 
cripts Division. 

*Born in Dublin, 1717, died c. 1807; A^^w International Encyclopaedia^ XVII, 
134-135. 

^See Washington Papers, Correspondence with the Officers, Index, 2713-2714. 

^°As he states at the opening of his letter containing the propositions. Wash- 
ington Papers, vol. ,198. 

^^"Nicola Propositions," p. 7, ibid. 

"Nicola to Washington, May 22, 1782, ibid. 



42 '"monarchical" tendencies in the united states [42 

enclosed of moment, & must require mature deliberation, I choose 
not to defer mentioning it any longer. "^^ 

The army had been patient and long suffering, according to 
Nicola, for it had realized that the ** particular circumstances of 
the times" had occasioned many of the injuries they had suffered. 
But "as the prospect of publick affairs cleared up, the means of 
fulfilling engagements encreased, yet the injuries, instead of being 
lessened, [had] kept pace with them." Nicola at no time ques- 
tioned the good faith of Congress, but he apprehended that their 
good intentions could not be carried out because of "schemes of 
economy in the legislatures of some States, & publick ministers, 
founded on unjust & iniquitous principles." Under such cir- 
cumstances there was a "dismal prospect" that when the army's 
services were no longer needed the army would be neglected and 
its members in many cases be reduced to beggary.^* Nicola 
offered some interesting evidence to show that he was by no 
means alone in his forebodings, writing, "From several conver- 
sations I have had with officers, & some I have overheard among 
soldiers, I believe it is generally intended not to seperate after 
the peace 'till all grievances are redressed, engagements & promises 
fulfilled. . ."^^ 

When one attempts to picture the actual carrying out of such 
intentions the bloody scenes of a civil war appear in the fore- 
ground. Nicola, however, expressly disclaimed such an outcome. 
"God forbid we should ever think of involving that country we 
have . . . rescued . . . into a new scene of blood & con- 
fusion," he exclaimed. Yet the members of the army were equally 
determined to claim their just rewards in order to provide for the 
subsistence of themselves and their families. The implied solu- 
tion was to let them try their hand at constitution making, their 
brethren in civil life having failed so miserably in their attempts. ^^ 
Such action seemed doubly reasonable to Nicola. In the first 
place, the members of the army had not been consulted "person- 
ally or representatively" in the framing of the governments under 

^3Nicola to Washington, May 22, 1782, Washington Papers, vol. 198 
^*" Nicola Propositions," p. I, ibid. Also ibid., p. 2. 
^Ubid.,y^.l. 
^Hbid., p. 2. 



43] AT THE CLOSE OF THE REVOLUTION 43 

which they were living." In the second place, Nicola thought 
that the plan he had prepared had sufficiently provided for the 
general welfare^^ to be generally accepted, without any armed 
conflict. 

Four features of his plan are of especial importance. First, 
his well argued defense of the superiority of monarchical features 
in governments and particularly in the "mixed government'* 
of Great Britain; second, the connection with the plan of a mili- 
tary colony "to the west;" third, the attention to detail evi- 
denced in much of the plan; fourth, the offering of the position 
of king to General Washington. 

In defense of monarchy Nicola wrote as follows: 

"I own I am not that violent admirer of a republican form of 
government that numbers in this country are; this is not owing 
to caprice, but reason & experience. Let us consider the fate of 
all the modern republicks of any note, without running into 
antiquity, which I think would also serve to estabHsh my sys- 
tem."i3 

As may be expected the "repubHcks" which he considered were 
"Venice, Genoa, & Holland." These had, he said, "shone with 
great brightness, but their lustre [had] been of short duration, 
and as it were only a blaze." The reduced political importance 
of the Netherlands in particular concerned him, because of the 
"great similarity" between their form of government and that of 
the United States. In contrast, as he noted, the "principal 
monarchies of Europe" despite many difficulties, still shone with 
brilliancy. Even absolute monarchy was "more beneficial to the 
existence of a nation" than the republican form.^^ But better 
than this was the mixed form of government which had been most 
nearly perfected in England, as a result of "repeated struggles 
between prince & people."^^ Even this was "still short of perfec- 
tion," but — and this is very important — the defects were of a 
nature to be easily excluded from the constitution of an American 

^^They had, instead, been "engaged in preventing the enemy from disturbing 
those bodies which were entrusted with that business." "Nicola Propositions," p. 2. 
^mid., p. 7. 
^^Ibid., p. 2. 
^^Ibid., p. 3. 
^^Ibid., p. 4. 



44 MONARCHICAL TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES [44 

"mixed government." The remedies were to confine representa- 
tion to counties and a '*few large trading cities," giving the fran- 
chise to **all contributing to the support of government," and to 
make elections annual; also to secure the dependence ofthe king by 
allowing him "no command of money beyond what is requisite 
to the support of his family & court, suitable to the dignity of his 
station." Thus improved, "the constitution would approach 
much nearer to that degree of perfection to which sublunary 
things are limited." Another essential feature to the best "mixed 
government" was probably "some degree of nobility" but this, 
he conceived, might be "limited . . . not hereditary. "^^ 

Nicola then proceeded to the more concrete part of his sug- 
gestions. He pointed out that Congress as well as some of the 
states had already "promised all those that continue in the service 
certain tracts of land, agreeable to their grades. . . " To insure 
justice, said Nicola, "they ought all to be put on a footing" by 
the United States, with no discriminations between men from differ- 
ent states nor between those in the army at the close ofthe war and 
those earlier dismissed" through schemes of economy.^^ He con- 
tinued; 

"These things premised, I think Congress should take on itself 
the discharging all such engagements ... by procuring a 
sufficient tract in some of the best of those fruitful & extensive 
countries to the west of our frontiers, so that each individual 
should have his due, all unprofitable mountains & swamps, also 
lakes & rivers , . . not to be reckoned as any part of the lots, 
but thrown in [for] the benefit of the whole community. This 
tract to be formed into a distinct State under such mode oj government 
as those military who choose to remove to it may agree on'"^ 

The attention to detail, already noted, is most prominent in 
the next few paragraphs which deal with remedies for the depre- 
ciation of notes, the liquidation of public debts by instalments, 
one "to be paid immediately, to enable the settlers to buy tools 
for trades & husbandry, & some stock," provisioning the emigrants 

22"Nicola Propositions," p. 4. (Note the similarity between these points and 
later reform platforms in England. Note also that the provision for annual 
elections might well be expected by Nicola to win favor for his plan from persons 
who might otherwise oppose it as too undemocratic.) 

^Ibid., p. 4. 

^'^Ibid.y p. 5. (The italics are not in the original.) 



45 ] AT THE CLOSE OF THE REVOLUTION 45 

at continental expense till sometime after the harvesting of the 
first crop, and so on.^^ This feature of the plan is of importance 
because it indicates that Nicola had given the subject much at- 
tention and quite probably had been present at group discussions 
of similar schemes. 

It was at this point that Nicola at last ventured to make his 
most startling suggestion, which was as follows: 

"This war must have shewn to all, but to military men in par- 
ticular the weakness of republics, & the exertions the army has 
been able to make by being under a proper head, therefore I little 
doubt, when the benefits of a mixed government are pointed out & 
duly considered, but such will be readily adopted; in this case it will, 
I beheve, be uncontroverted that the same abilities which have 
lead us, through difficulties apparently unsurmoun table by human 
power, to victory & glory, those qualities that have merited & 
obtained the universal esteem & veneration of an army, would be 
most Hkely to conduct & direct us in the smoother paths of peace. "^^ 

Waxing bold with enthusiasm Nicola declared, "Some people 
have so connected the ideas of tyranny & monarchy as to find it 
very difficult to seperate them, it may therefore be requisite to 
give the head of such a constitution . . . some title apparently 
more moderate, but if all other things were once adjusted I believe 
strong arguments might be produced for admitting the title of 
king, which I conceive would be attended with some material 
advantages. "2^ 

In closing he returned once more to the idea of a western colony 
citing its services as a reason for the adoption of his plan by the 
country. He wrote: 

"I have hinted I believed the United States would be benefited 
by my scheme, this I conceive would be done, by having a savage 
& cruel enemy seperated from their borders, by a body of veterans, 
that would be as an advanced guard, securing the main body from 
danger. There is no doubt but Canada will some time or other 
be a seperate State, and from the genious & habits of the people, 

25"Nicola Propositions," pp. 5-6. The cost of the provisions mentioned was to 
"be deducted from each non commissioned & private mans debt" with the ex- 
ception of provisions needed during the interval before the "accounts [were] all 
adjusted & the troopsr eady to march." 

'^nU., pp. 6-7. 

''UU., p. 7. 



46 ''monarchical" tendencies in the united states [46 

that its government will be monarchical. May not casualties 
produce enmity between this new State & our Union, & may not 
its force under the direction of an active prince prove too powerful 
for the efforts of republicks? It may be answered that in a few 
years we shall acquire such vigour as to baffle all inimical attempts. 
I grant that our numbers & riches will encrease, but will our gov- 
ernments have energy enough to draw them forth? Will those 
States remote from the danger be zealously anxious to assist those 
most exposed? Individuals in Holland abound in wealth, yet the 
government is poor & weaL^^s 

Washington's stern rebuke to Nicola is far better known than 
is Nicola's presentation of his case.^^ One may well agree with 
Professor Channing that ''Washington's reply is, possibly, the 
grandest single thing in his whole career. "^° It deserves praise, 
not only for its spirit of renunciation, but also for its recognition 
that the American people had become fundamentally anti- 
monarchical in sentiment. Yet someone should speak in behalf 
of Nicola. He too, despite his errors of judgment and his per- 
sonal — even selfish — interest, wished well to America. ^^ Probably 
the country, more than once, has been rescued from disaster by the 
tremendous powers of its chief executive, especially in time of 
war. There have been occasions when Nicola, could he be 
imagined as an interested though invisible spectator, might 
have reflected that some of the features of his plan had actually 
been put into force. 

Attention should be called to another letter to Washington 
written but a month after the Nicola propositions. It vividly 

^^"Nicola Proposition," p. 7. 

"Washington to Nicola, May 22, 1782, Washington Papers, vol. 198, Man- 
uscripts Division, Library of Congress. Washington, Writings (Sparks ed.), VIII, 
300-301; ibid. (Ford ed.), X, 21-22. A brief summary of Nicola's propositions and 
two quoted paragraphs are given by Sparks in a footnote, VIII, 301-302. Sparks 
believed Nicola was voicing the sentiments of a party in the army, "neither small 
in number, nor insignificant in character . . . ." Ford follows Sparks. See 
Washington's Writings (Ford ed.), X, 22-24 n. Nicola's secret was faithfully 
kept. Other men were, by rumor, connected with a monarchical plot of 1782 but 
not Nicola. See, for example, the Aurora, Aug. 30, 1800, p. 2, where Hamilton is 
accused in a letter dated April 25, 1795. 

3°Channing, History of the United States, III, 376. 

'^The three letters of apology which he wrote to Washington help one to under- 
stand Nicola and his motives. As they appear not to have been printed elsewhere 
they are given in full in an appendix to the present study. See below, pages 129-134. 



47] AT THE CLOSE OF THE REVOLUTION 47 

expressed a feeling of despair over the existing situation, and sug- 
gested an " absolute Monarchy, or a military State," as the only 
salvation "from all the Horrors of Subjugation."32 Its writer, 
like Nicola, was interested in a colony, to the west, as shown by 
his later prominent connection with the Ohio Company.^^ The 
letter was written by Major General James Mitchell Varnum 
under the heading ''Providence, June 23^ 1782." Varnum was, 
at the time, an officer in the Rhode Island mihtia and a member of 
Congress,^^ having previously resigned his commission as Brigadier 
General in the Continental army. 

After referring to certain other subjects he burst forth with 
this exclamation:^^ 

** Such is the dreadful Situation of this Country that it is in the 
Power of any State to frustrate the Intention of all the others — 
This Calamity is so [manuscript torn at this point] Founded in 
the Articles of Confederation, and will continually increase 'till 
that baseless Fabric shall yield to some kind of Governm.ent, the 
Principles of which may be correspondent to the Tone of the Pas- 
sions. The Citizens at large are totally destitute of that Love of 
Equality which is absolutely requisite to support a democratic 
Republick: Avarice, Jealousy & Luxury controul their Feelings, 
& consequently, absolute Monarchy, or a military State, can alone 
rescue them from all the Horrors of Subjugation. — The circulating 
Cash of the Country is too trifling to raise a Revenue by Taxation 
for supporting the War, — & too many of the People are obstinately 
averse to those artificial Aids which would supply its Deficiency. 
In this Situation every Moment augments our Danger, by fixing 
the Habits of Licentiousness, and giving Permanency to British 
Persevearence: And should Dejection in our Ally proceed to Mis- 
fortune,^^ the Instability of national Policy may give Place to the 
Sentiments of the mediating Powers, 'that we are too young to 

^^General J. M. Varnum to General Washington, June 23, 1782, Washington 
Papers, vol. 198, Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress. 

s^See, for example, A. B. Hulbert, Pilots of the Republic, 119, and S. P. Hildreth, 
Pioneer History, 246-247. 

^Appletons' Cyclopaedia of American Biography, VI-VII, 261. On the ability 
and standing of Varnum as a lawyer see A. C. McLaughlin, The Confederation and 
the Constitution {The American Nation: A History, X), 152. 

35Varnum to Washington, June 23, 1782, Washington Papers, vol. 198. 

'^This refers, no doubt, to the naval victory of Rodney over de Grasse, the middle 



48 MONARCHICAL TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES [48 

govern ourselves.' — At all Events, this Country hangs upon the 
Issue of the present Campaign ! If a great Exertion could be made, 
. . . to repossess ourselves of New York, we may possibly 
realize the Blessings of Independence; But Time alone will unfold 
the Decrees of Fate." 

General Washington's answer to Varnum was very different 
from the one he had written to Nicola.^^ He observed that 
Varnum's state had met its obligations better at least than the 
other states. He added that "tho' the conduct of the people at 
large" was "truly alarming" he could not "consent to view" the 
situation "in that distrest light" in which Varnum saw it. He 
concluded with the hope that even yet "some fortunate Crisis 
will arrive, when those destructive passions, which I confess too 
generally pervade all Ranks, shall give place to that love of Free- 
dom which first animated us in this Contest." 

Six years later General Varnum delivered the first Independence 
Day oration at Marietta, Ohio.^^ Part of his remarks on that 
occasion were so pertinent to the subject of the letter just con- 
sidered that they should be considered at this point. He said in part: 

". . . the articles of the confederation, founded upon the 
union of the states, were so totally defective in the executive powers 
of government, that a change in the fundamental principles be- 
came absolutely necessary, and but for those friendships which 
have formed and preserved an union sacred to honor, patriotism, 
and virtue, and, but for that superior wisdom which formed the 
new plan of a federal government, now rapid in its progress to 
adoption, the confederation itself, before this day, would have 

of April, 1782. (On this victory see Van Tyne, The American Revolution, 328.) 
Compare letter by Washington to R. R. Livingston, May 22, 1782, Washington 
Papers, 198. 

sounder date of July 10, 1782, Washington Papers, vol. 198. Perhaps Wash- 
ington made some allowance for what appears to have been the rather excitable 
temper of the man. See G. Morris on Varnum, Washington, Writings (J^ or d ed.), 
VII, 30, n. 1. An odd characterization by T. Rodney (in Congress with Varnum), 
April 13, 1781, is as follows: "A resolution was moved by Gen. Varnum . 
by words like the Man himself . . . fine . . . but not well adapted to the 
occasion." T. Rodney, Diary, 38-39, Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress. 
Washington's previous correspondence with Varnum shows that they had been 
mutually concerned over the mutinous spirit in the army. Washington, Writings 
(Ford ed.), VII, 328, n. 

'^Hildreth,. Pioneer History 504. 



49] AT THE CLOSE OF THE REVOLUTION 49 

been dissolved! Then, indeed, might we have 'hung our harps 
upon the willows, for we could not have sung in a strange land.* 
Then we might have lamented, but could not have avoided the 
horrors of a civil w^ar. Promiscuous carnage would have deluged 
the country in blood, until some daring chief, more fortunate than 
his adversary, would have riveted the chains of perpetual bondage! 

"But now anticipating the approaching greatness of this 
country, nourished and protected under the auspices of a nation, 
forming and to be cemented by the strongest and the best of ties; 
the active, the generous, the brave, the oppressed defenders of 
their country will here find a safe, an honorable asylum, and may 
recline upon the pleasure of their own reflections."^^ 

It is customary to make some allowance for the patriotic fervor 
of the moment when quoting a speech of this nature. Such 
caution may well be discarded in this case when it is compared 
with the yet more impassioned outburst of the confidential letter 
of 1782.^° The second paragraph suggests a reason for the non- 
fruition of monarchical projects, namely, that a solution was found 
which was much better suited to the republican and democratic 
tendencies of the people at large. 

The dissolution of the confederation hinted at by Varnum had 
been, about 1782, a common subject of discussion, if we may trust 
the notes of a foreign observer. Even members of Congress often 
discussed them, and professed to feel little fear for disastrous 
results of such a course.^^ x'\nother view of the subject regarded 
the confederation as a convenient interstate treasurer, but little 
more.^ Meanwhile the financial distress of the army did not 
become less acute. A more distinguished officer than either Nicola 
or Varnum, and later first governor of the Northwest Territory, 
wrote thus in November, 1782: 

39Hildreth, o-p. cii., 506. 

^Reference has already been made (above, n. 37) to the excitable temper of 
Varnum. While this might argue that he might exaggerate difficulties it equally 
argues that he, though little more alarmed than his friends, would be a better in- 
formant because less cautious in his expression of his thoughts. 

^^Translator's comment. Travels by Marquis de Chastellux, I, 218-219. The so- 
journ in Philadelphia during which the translator heard these discussions was 
probably early in 1782. See Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, XI, 6. 

«See, for example, R. H. Lee, Letters (J. C. Ballagh ed.), II, 282. 



50 ^^monarchical" tendencies in the united states [50 

" I am in debt, and my credit exhausted, and, were it not for the 
rations I receive, my family would actually starve. "^^ 

Washington himself, a few weeks earlier, had written to the 
Secretary of War, " I can not help fearing the result of the measure 
in contemplation, [the reduction of the army] . . . when I see such 
a number of men, goaded by a thousand stings of reflection on the 
past and of anticipation on the future, about to be turned into the 
world, soured by penury and what they call the ingratitude of the 
public. . . ." What the result was which Washington so 
feared is shown by the last sentence of the paragraph, "On the 
other hand, could the officers be placed in as good a situation as 
when they came into service, the contention, I am persuaded, 
would be, not who should continue in the field, but who should 
retire to private life."^'^ 

The "New burgh Addresses" and the "Order of the Cincinnati" 
are familiar terms to any one who has read the history of this 
period. Both had become factors in the American situation early 
in 1783. Their connection with "monarchical tendencies" is a 
matter of conjecture and interpretation, yet deserves some notice. 

The "Addresses"^^ and the circumstances surrounding them 
lend themselves to our purposes as a commentary on the Nicola 
propositions. It will be recalled that the first of these papers was 
a petition to Congress, "agreed to by the principal officers" of the 
Newburgh cantonment. The petition contained nothing start- 
ling.^® James Madison noted that General McDougall (member 
of the committee which presented the address to Congress) "made 
a remark w^.^ may deserve the greater attention as he stepped 
from the tenor of his discourse to introduce it, and delivered it 
with peculiar emphasis. He said that the most intelligent & con- 
siderate part of the army were deeply affected at the debility and 
defects in the federal Govl, and the unwillingness of the States to 
cement & invigorate it; as in case of its dissolution, the benefits 
expected from the Revolution w*? be greatly impaired, and as in 
particular, the contests which might ensue am? the States would 
be sure to embroil the officers . . . "^^ Thus it seems evident 

43Gen. St. Clair to Gen. Washington, Nov. 26, 1782, St, Clair Papers (W. H. 
Smith ed.), I, 572. 

^Oct. 2, 1782, Washington, JVritings (Ford ed.), X, 92. 

^^Conveniently treated in J. Sparks, Wriiings of Washington ^WWySi^^tnS.ii.'i^ii 

^Hbid., 551-552. 

'^''Madison s Notes on Debates in the Continental Congress, Jan. 13, 1783. 



5l] AT THE CLOSE OF THE REVOLUTION 5 1 

that there was a general feeling among the officers that the exist- 
ing government was very faulty and that there was little chance 
of its reform through civil action. 

It will be recalled that the second ''Newburgh Address" was 
unofficial and anonymous.^^ It is probable, however, that these 
very characteristics, since they meant a certain freedom from 
restraint, more truly expressed the existing discontent. Nicola 
had merely reported hearing that the army intended to refuse to 
disband till the pay they felt due them should be assured beyond 
doubt.^^ The author of the second "Newburgh Address" boldly 
urged such action by the army.^^ Another feature of this address 
reminds one of Nicola's plan, for there was a suggestion that, 
under certain circumstances, the officers, ''courting the auspices, 
and inviting the direction" of their ''illustrious leader" should 
*' retire to some unsettled country." The author showed scorn 
for neither monarchy or republicanism as such but rather for the 
oppression that might be manifest under either. Thus he exhorted 
his fellow officers to oppose tyranny when it was garbed in the 
"plain coat of republicanism" quite as much as when it assumed 
the "splendid robe of royalty. "^^ 

It has been said that probably "Hamilton himself, and others gen- 
erally patriotic, were not altogether sorry to see the army restless. "^^ 
Such an attitude could be easily accounted for by a desire for 
justice to public debtors and sure tranquility for the country^^ 
without connecting it with monarchical tendencies. A record of 
the confidential talks in which Hamilton probably took part, along 
with men of similar views, such as Gouverneur Morris for ex- 
ample, would throw much light on our problem. But no record 
of the sort appears. General Washington coped with the New- 
burgh affair quite as successfully as he had rebuked the monarchi- 
cal propositions of Nicola. The meeting of officers which he ad- 
dressed on the subject thanked him for what he had said, and 

*^Evidence points to "John Armstrong, aide-de-camp to General Gates" as the 
writer, and to Gates, alone or with other "conspicuous men", as the instigator. 
McLaughlin, The Confederation and the Constitution, 65. 

^^"Nicola Propositions," p. 2. 

^oj. Sparks, Writings of Washington, VIII, 557. 

^Ubid., SSI. 

"McLaughlin, op. cit., 60. 

"Compare ibid., 62-63. 



52 "monarchical^^ tendencies in the united states [52 

"resolved unanimously, That the officers of the American army" 
rejected "with disdain, the infamous propositions"^* of the 
anonymous address. They even made the following resolve: 

"That the army continue to have an unshaken confidence in 
the justice of Congress and their country; and are fully convinced, 
that the representatives of America will not disband or disperse 
the army until their accounts are liquidated, the balances accurate- 
ly ascertained, and adequate funds established for payment. "^^ 

The mihtary officers were not much longer without an organiza- 
tion which would continue to exist even after the disbanding of the 
army. In fact they looked forward to future generations and 
made their organization hereditary. It has a place in the present 
study despite the fact that the founders of the Society of the Cin- 
cinnati^^ had no "monarchical" intentions judging by their papers 
and private correspondence. Even Aedanus Burke, who com- 
batted them with his anonymous pamphlet, which appeared soon 
after the society was founded,^^ admitted this, though he be- 
lieved that they might have cherished such ideas in their hearts.^^ 
That is mere conjecture. But there are two points in connection 
with the Cincinnati which should be brought to mind in a study of 
monarchical tendencies, first, the popular hostility to the society, 
and second, its potentialities as a political machine. Neither of 
these had become very apparent in the first few months after the 
close of the war.^^ The further consideration of them will there- 
fore be deferred to later chapters. 

"J. Sparks, Writings of Washington, VIII, 560-565. 

^Ibid., 564. 

^^Founded May 13, 1783, at General Steuben's headquarters near Fishkill, N. Y. 
Its purpose, as stated, was to continue comradely Intercourse among the officers 
and provide for needy members. Provision was made for 13 state societies, to 
send delegates triennially to a general convention. Washington was its first 
president, succeeded after his death by Hamilton. It barely continued throughout 
the 19th century but is now in existence again with Its full number of branches. 
New International Encyclopaedia, V, 335-336. 

^"^Considerations on the Cincinnati. Burke was a judge in South Carolina, and 
famous for his distaste of ceremony. See American Historical Association Report, 
1896, 1,885-887. Although as a member of the convention in his state he opposed 
the adoption of the new federal constitution he served in Congress 1789-1791. 
Appletons' Cyclopaedia of American Biography, I, 454. 

^^Burke, op. cit.y 3. 

^mid.,2. 



53] AT THE CLOSE OF THE REVOLUTION 53 

A few days after the organization of the Cincinnati Society a 
mutiny of some troops at the seat of the confederated govern- 
ment evidenced in a menacing fashion the resentment of the army 
over the matter of unfulfilled congressional promises.^^ Among 
the members of Congress forced to flee before the insulting demon- 
strations of the mutineers were probably men destined later to be- 
come so disgusted with the weakness of the existing government 
as to manifest decidedly monarchical inclinations.^^ 

The remainder of the year was comparatively uneventful. 
The official news of the signing of the definitive treaty of peace 
at last arrived in October. Already, in anticipation of this news, 
the army had been reduced, and on November third all remaining 
members who had enlisted for the duration of the war, were dis- 
charged.^2 General Washington, after some final arrangements, 
departed for his plantation and private life.^^ If the American 
people was thinking of monarchical rank for him it appeared to be 
only after he should die, when he might sit upon one of the 
** . . . thrones erected in the taste of heav'n, 
Distinguish'd thrones for patriot demi-gods".^^ 



*°A most interesting contemporary account of this is found in Madison* s Notes 
on the Debates in the Continental Congress, June 19-21, 1783. 

"For instance Nathaniel Gorham. See below, 69. 

«2F. L. Humphreys, Life of David Humphreys, I, 279. 

w" Washington arrived at Mount Vernon on the day before Christmas." Wash- 
inton, Writings (Ford ed.), X, 340, n. 1. 

<^From an ode "To His Excellency General WASHINGTON," by "Hortensius" 
(Governor William Livingston), written for the New-Jersey Gazette in the spring 
of 1778, New Jersey Archives, 2d ser., H, 135-137. 



CHAPTER IV 

MONARCHICAL TENDENCIES FROM THE END OF THE 

WAR TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: 

THE PRINCE HENRY EPISODE 

By the time Congress had ratified the peace treaty (in January, 
1784) the army had been quietly dispersed. But the fact that 
Congress ** could barely assemble a quorum to ratify the treaty"^ 
is illustrative of the more or less demoralized state of the govern- 
ment and suggests further trouble ahead. It is quite possible 
that that there has been a tendency to paint the "Critical Period" 
in too somber colors. Many people of the time seem to have been 
fairly comfortable and contented under their state governments 
despite the defects of Congress.^ The Articles of Confederation 
had been received with signs of **joy . . . in every Counte- 
nance but those of the Disaffected."^ As late as January 1786 
a prominent New England business man praised the government of 
the Confederation for its "many excellent principles" and ex- 
plained its apparent defects as "impediments in its administra- 
tion" rather than in its structure.'* 

^Jan. 14th. Van Tyne, The American Revolution, 330. 

2See for example The Letters of R. H. Lee, II, 284, 343. 

•Thomas Rodney, Diary, Feb. 26, 1781; Manuscripts Division, Library of Con- 
gress. Rodney was a member of Congress from Delaware at the time of the final 
adoption of the Articles of Confederation. By "the Disaffected" Rodney seems 
to have meant a minority out of sympathy with the general trend of affairs in the 
new nation. 

*Nathan Dane in letter of Jan. 20th, Bane Letters. Manuscripts Division, Library 
of Congress. His sincerity in moving for a constitutional convention was ques- 
tioned by Madison in his Notes on Debates in the Continental Congress, Feb. 21, 1787. 
Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress. On Dane's public services see 
Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, II, 7-9. In a letterof Jan.31, 1786> 
Dane said it was yet "too early to take desperate measures" but if "3 or 4 weak 
or obstinate States" would not contribute properly to the general funds they 
"must be shaken off and left to their misfortunes." Dane Letters, Jan. 31st. 
Compare J, B. McMaster, History of the People of the United States, I, 201-202. 



54 



55] FROM THE WAR TO THE CONVENTION 55 

On the other hand it will be recalled that the Congress of the 
Confederation had so little power that it could not even provide 
for the debts which had been part of the price of independence. 
The president of Congress in 1787 was almost in despair over the 
disgraceful difficulty of securing a quorum, while his predecessor 
has been suspected of seeking truly desperate remedies.^ In 
general Congress failed to command respect either at home or 
abroad.® It was the unrest in New England particularly, culmi- 
nating in the ** Shays Rebellion," which is generally accepted as 
having convinced men, all over the United States, of the absolute 
necessity of a reform of the government of the Confederation. 
But comparatively little attention has been paid to the possibility 
that the more stringent remedies which some of the Massachusetts 
conservatives considered pointed towards monarchical institutions. 

The historian Minot, clerk of the Massachusetts House of 
Representatives at the time of the insurrection, wrote that "There 
began ... to arise [a] class of men in the community, who 
gave very serious apprehensions to the advocates for a republican 
form of government. These, though few in number, and but the 
seeds of a party, consisted of persons respectable for their litera- 
ture and their wealth. They had seen so much confusion arising 
from popular councils, and had been so long expecting measures 
for vindicating the dignity of government, which seemed now 
less likely to take place than ever, that they, with an impatience 
too inconsiderately indulged, were almost ready to assent to a 
revolution, in hopes of erecting a political system, more braced 
than the present, and better calculated, in their opinions, to pro- 
mote the peace and happiness of the citizens."^ In the Massa- 
chusetts convention for the ratification of the federal constitution 
a Mr. Smith, who described himself as "a plain man" and farmer 
and no office seeker, declared that the insurrection of the preceding 
year had brought so much anarchy and distress that **we should 
have been glad to snatch at anything that looked like a govern- 

"^Arthur St. Clair to Governor Huntington of Connecticut [June or Aug.?] 1787,- 
St. Clair Papers, I, 603-604. (The letter does not specify the month or day.) 

^See such standard treatments as. that by Fiske, The Critical Period of Ameri- 
can History \ McLaughlin, The Confederation and Constitution; McMaster, op. cit., 
chaps, ii-iv; Channing, History of the United States, III, chap. xv. 

^G. R. Minot, History of the Insurrections in Massachusetts (1st ed., Boston, 1788, 
2d ed., Boston, 1810), 61-62. For brief notice of Minot see New International 
Encyclopaedia, XV, 757. 



56 '^monarchical" tendencies in the united states [56 

ment. Had any person, that was able to protect us, come and 
set up his standard, we should all have flocked to it, even if it had 
been a monarch."^ This statement, isolated though it be, at least 
suggests the possibility that the harassed people might have sup- 
ported the projects of the Httle group of anti-repubhcan leaders 
to whom Minot referred. 

Jefferson, despite his own vigorous denunciations of monarchy 
as a remedy far worse than any disease that might afllict republi- 
can government,^ could believe that some Americans were capable 
of considering monarchy for their country. "We were educated 
in royalism; no wonder if some of us retain that idolatry still. "^° 
Already, in 1784, a prominent New England clergyman had said, 
"Experiment is the surest and fairest way of coming at knowl- 
edge; and I think it will not be much longer before we shall all be 
convinced that a democratic government, over such a large and 
increasing number of people, inhabiting so vast an extent of 
country, is to say the least . . . extremely inconvenient . . . 
and very inadequate to the purpose." Again he wrote, "Let it 
stand as a principle that government originates from the people; 
but let the people be taught (. . . they will learn it by experi- 
ence, if no other way) that they are not able to govern themselves 
. . . .Should even a limited monarchy be erected, our liberties 
may be as safe as if every man had the keeping of them solely 
in his own power. "^^ 

William Plumer, in 1784, on the eve of his career as a prominent 
New England statesman, had no aversion to monarchy. More- 
over he professed to believe his attitude to be a not unrepresenta- 
tive one! His political creed was as follows: 

8J. Elliot, Debates in the . . . State Conventions, II, 102-103. 

^" . . . with all the defects of our constitution^, whether general or particular, 
the comparison of our governments with those of Europe, are like a comparison 
of heaven & hell. England, like the earth, may be allowed to take the intermedi- 
ate station." Jefferson to J. Jones, Aug. 14, 1787, Writings (Ford ed.), IV, 438. 
Compare his letter to B. Hawkins, Aug. 4, 1787, ibid., IV, 426. 

"To James Madison, Mar. 15, 1789, Jefferson, ibid., V, 83. Note that in the 
same letter he is confident that the *' young people . . . educated in republican- 
ism" will never consider monarchy. Compare ibid., IV, 261. 

"Jeremy Belknap to Ebenezar Hazard, Feb. 27 and March 3, 1784, Belknap 
Papers, I {Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 5th ser., II), 307 and 315 
respectively. Belknap was prominent and respected in both Massachusetts and 
New Hampshire. See New International Encyclopaedia, III, 96. 



57] FROM THE WAR TO THE CONVENTION 57 

". . . I am fully resolved to use my power & influence in 
supporting that form of Government which my country estab- 
lishes. I do not feel hostile to either democracy, autocracy, or 
monarchy. I am inclined to think the people are much more in- 
terested in the good administration than in the theory or form of 
the government — Or, as Pope expresses it, 'That government is 
best which is administered best.' "^^ 

John Jay, in 1786, after referring to the Shays Rebellion, wrote, 
"Much, I think is to be feared from the sentiments which such a 
state of things is calculated to infuse into the minds of the rational 
and well-intended. In their eyes, the charms of liberty will daily 
fade; and in seeking for peace and security, they will too naturally 
turn towards systems in direct opposition to those which oppress 
and disquiet them. 

"If faction should long bear down law and government, tyranny 
may raise its head, or the more sober part of the people may even 
think of a king.''^^ 

Four months earlier Jay had written a similar letter to Wash- 
ington^^ in which, without using the term "king" or "monarchy" 
he had confessed his fear that a "state of fluctuation and uncer- 
tainty must disgust and alarm" the "better kind of people "^^ 
until it should "prepare their minds for almost any change that 
may promise them quiet and security." Washington, in his an- 
swer, went much further and said he had been told " that even 
respectable characters speak of a monarchical form of government 
without horror." He added that " [f]rom thinking proceeds 
speaking; thence to acting is often but a single step," and expressed 
horror at "consequences we have but too much reason to appre- 

^J collection of Letters written to and by William Plumer and transcribed for his 
Amusement and Instruction, 58-59. Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress. 
See W. Plumer Jr.. Life of William Plumer, 53-59. In a letter written the same 
year Plumer declared that "if our elective government" was to be "long supported" 
it would be due only to the judiciary, since this was "the only body of men" who 
had "an effective check upon a numerous Assembly." Plumer, Letters, 69. See 
Life of Plumer, 67-80. 

i3jay to Jefferson, Oct. 27, 1786, Jay, Correspondence, III, 213. 

"Written at Philadelphia, June 27, 1786. Ibid., Ill, 203-205. 

^Jay defined the "better kind of people" as those who were "orderly and in- 
dustrious . . . content with their situations and not uneasy in their circum- 
stances." Ibid., 205. 



58 ''monarchical" tendencies in the united states [58 

hend."^^ Again, in December 1786, Washington was writing about 
the Massachusetts situation. This time it was in a letter to 
General Knox in which he noted that the latter had intimated 
"that the men of reflection, principle, and property in New Eng- 
land, feeling the inefficacy of their present government" were 
"contemplating a change" but that he had not been "explicit 
with respect to its nature. "^^ Only a few weeks before the Con- 
stitutional Convention Washington expressed the following 
views in a letter to Madison: "I am fully of opinion that those, 
who lean to a monarchical government, have either not consulted 
the public mind, or that they live in a region, which (the levelling 
principles in which they were bred being entirely eradicated) 
is much more productive of monarchical ideas, than are to be 
found in the southern States. . . I am also clear, that, even 
admitting the utility, nay, necessity of the form, yet that the period 
is not arrived for adopting the change without shaking the peace 
of this country to its foundation." This affords not only addi- 
tional evidence that Washington recognized the existence of 
"monarchical" tendencies but suggests that he was not wholly 
horrified at their existence.^^ 

Judging from the dearth of contemporary references to the 
"monarchical plot" of 1786 no one who knew the facts cared — 
or perhaps, dared — to be expHcit about them, while the secret was 
too well guarded to be handed about among its enemies. It has 
been well and wisely said that "Imperfection or absence of record 
excuses many a lame and ill-constructed story and covers with a 
decent pall the failings of many a reputation." ^^ Perhaps the 
story that a Prussian prince was offered an American crown falls 
under this indictment. But in view of the apprehensions of such 
men as Washington and Jay that something of the sort might be 
afoot the story should be examined, both by itself and in the light 
of attendant circumstances. 

A newspaper article which appeared March 2, 1799, posed as 
having the facts well in hand. This article purported to be by a 
Federalist and, according to the editorial note, was printed in the 

isMount Vernon, Aug. 1, 1786, Washington, Writings (Ford ed.), XI, 55. 
i^Dec. 26, 1786, ibid., XI, 105. 
isLetter dated March 31, 1787, ibid., XI, 132. 

^^W. C. Ford, Manuscripts and Historical Archives, American Historical Asso- 
ciation Report, 1913, I, 79. 



59] FROM THE WAR TO THE CONVENTION 59 

opposition press because it displayed " the sentiments and designs 
as well as the practices of the party that has been running these 
States to destruction , . ."^^ The letter impresses one as a 
clever parody of Federalist views. Whether a parody or not it is 
interesting and suggestive. The writer, after suggesting a royal 
dynasty for America, continued, '*I have no idea however, of 
looking for one of a foreign growth. The invitation given to a 
Prince of the illustrious house of Brandenburgh, about the time 
of the Shays insurrection, never met my approbation: Henry's 
answer displayed great political sagacity, and ought never to be 
forgotten: I believe it still in existence." This disclosure was 
apparently not followed up. A monarchical charge in the same 
paper, more than a year later, contained no reference to the foreign 
prince, though it concerned "the period between the peace of 
1783, and the formation of the constitution of 1787." It was 
aimed at Alexander Hamilton, as was also a similar rumor of about 
the same time which Hamilton flatly denied.^^ 

Some fifteen years later President-elect Monroe confided to 
General Andrew Jackson his observations on monarchical ten- 
dencies in the period in question.^^ *'Xhat some of the leaders of 
the federal party entertained principles unfriendly to our system 
of government I have been thoroughly convinced; and that they 
meant to work a change in it, by taking advantage of favorable 
circumstances, I am equally satisfied." He then referred to his 
membership for three years in the Congress of the Confederation 
"just before . . . the adoption of the present Constitution," 
and later in the Senate, "beginning shortly after its adoption." 

*°The (Philadelphia) Aurora (reprinting from the Albany Register), Mar. 2, 
1799, p. 2. 

^Ibid., Aug. 30, 1800, p. 2. For Hamilton's action concerning such charges 
see his letters to Governor George Clinton, Feb. 27, Mar. 2, Mar. 7, and Mar. 9, 1804, 
in Hamilton, ^ori^j, VIII, 610-613. James Kane records that he accompanied Ham- 
ilton in a call upon Mr. Purdy, who had repeated these charges, and Purdy said that 
what he had really said was in respect to a claim that "sometime previous to the 
convention which framed the present Constitution of the United States . . . 
somebody in England had made proposals to somebody at the Eastward for es- 
tablishing a monarchy in this country, and placing at the head ... a son of 
the King of Great Britain; that some letters or papers containing these proposals 
were sent to Gen. Hamilton, copies of which were made in his office to be distribut- 
ed." Ibid., VIII, 611, n. This version of Purdy 's charges differs materially 
from that given by Mr. Kane. 

22Dec. 14, 1816, Monroe, Writings, V, 342-345. 



6o '^'^monarchical" tendencies in the united states [6o 

During this service, said he, **I saw indications of the kind sug- 
gested. It was an epoch at which the views of men were most 
likely to unfold themselves, as, if anything favorable to a higher 
toned government was to be obtained, that was the time. . . 
No daring attempt was ever made, because there was no oppor- 
tunity for it." After making further comments apparently re- 
ferring to the period following 1789, he concluded, ''Many of the 
circumstances on which my opinion is founded took place in debate, 
and in society, and therefore find no place in any public document. 
I am satisfied however that sufficient proof exists, founded on 
facts, and opinions of distinguished individuals, which became 
public, to justify that which I had formed." He added that it 
was his "candid opinion . . . that the dangerous purposes 
. . . were never adopted, if they were known, especially in 
their full extent, by any large portion of the federal party; but were 
confined to certain leaders and they principally to the eastward." 
Even so he felt he ought to hesitate before admitting recruits from 
the Federalist party into his own administration. The practical 
politics of 1816 were interwoven by the writer with the monarchical 
charges which he made. Yet the existence of a political motive 
in circulating such charges does not prove that they were not 
founded on facts. 

A more definite statement was made by President Monroe in 
1817, according to the "Memoirs" of Joseph Gardner Swift.^^ 
The occasion was a confidential conversation which occurred 
sometime during a trip on which Swift accompanied the President. 
Swift records that "Mr. Monroe said that during the presidency of 
Congress of N. Gorham, that gentleman wrote Prince Henry, of 
Prussia, his fears that America could not sustain her indepen- 
dence, and asked the prince if he could be induced to accept regal 
power on the failure of our free institutions. The prince replied 
that he regretted deeply the probability of failure, and that he 
would do no act to promote such failure, and was too old to com- 
mence new labors in life. "^'' 

23J. G. Swift, 1783-1865, was one of the first two graduates of West Point. He 
was superintendent of the same froml812-1817. His Memoirs were pubUshed in 
1890. For brief notice see Lamb's Biographical 'Dictionary , VII, 269-270. 

^J. G. Swift, Memoirs, 164. Dr. Samuel Eliot Morison called the writer's at- 
tention to this passage. 



6l] FROM THE WAR TO THE CONVENTION 6 1 

In 1824 a diary entry by Rufus King bore witness that Monroe 
was still referring to the existence of monarchical tendencies. ^^ 

*'10th May 1824. Col. Miller this evening said to me, speak- 
ing of Mr. Pr. Monroe that he had told him that Mr. Gorham, 
formerly President of Congress, had written a letter to Prince 
Henry, brother of the great Frederic, desiring him to come to the 
United States to he their King^ and that the Prince had declined 
by informing Mr. Gorham that the Americans had shown so much 
determination agt. their old King, that they wod. not readily 
submit to a new one; Mr. Monroe adding that Genl. Armstrong 
had given him this information and that the papers or corres- 
pondence was in the hands of General Hull?^ 

**This communication' arose from the letter of Monroe to General 
Jackson, expressing his opinion that among the Federalists of the 
time of Genl. Washington, were persons in favor of Monarchy, 

MI" 

No communication of this nature appears among the Monroe 
papers, yet it is not improbable that it was transmitted orally. 
The question naturally arises as to how Armstrong knew that Hull 
had such papers, supposing they really were in his possession. He 
may have become aware of them during the court-martial of Hull 
in 1813-1814^^ since he was Secretary of War at the time.^^ On 
the other hand the papers may have been destroyed by fire, in 
1812, along with many others belonging to Hull.^^ But Arm- 

25R. King, Life and Correspondence, VI, 643-644. It may be relevant to remark 
that this again was the year of a presidential election. 

^^HuU's oration before the Massachusetts Cincinnati July 4, 1788 contains 
references quite in keeping with a knowledge of such a plan as the one ascribed to 
Gorham. See below, page 73. 

^T. S. Drake, Memorials of the Cincinnati of Massachusetts, 352. 

^^New International Encyclopaedia, II, 157. 

29For remarks on the loss of these papers see Drake, op. cit., 353, and Marie 
Campbell, Life of Hull, ix-x. The latter was one of General Hull's daughters. She 
makes no reference to monarchical ideas in American unless a passage on page 218 
refers to them. In connection with Hull's possible interest in the affair, it may be 
noted that he returned to Massachusetts about 1786 and took part against the 
Shays Rebellion. Drake, op. cit., 346. He had served in the Revolution under 
Steuben. Campbell, op. cit., 127. Incidentally it may be borne in mind that 
the charges against Hull dealt with treachery as well as cowardice although he was 
not convicted of the former. 



62 '^MONARCHICAL^^ TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES [62 

Strong had an opportunity for more direct information for he 
spent the winter of 1787-88 in the same lodging-house as General 
Steuben,^^ the man who is supposed to have transmitted the in- 
vitation to the prince.^^ He was, moreover, esteemed and trusted 
as a friend by Steuben.^^ If, as seems probable, Armstrong wrote 
the second "Newburgh Address,"^^ he was keenly interested in 
methods of curbing republican "tyranny." 

Already, in 1822, two years before his diary entry on the sub- 
ject, King had become involved in a sharp argument in the Senate 
regarding '*a proposal of inviting some German prince" to an 
** intended American throne."^^ In 1825 there seems to have 
been an attempt to exploit the incident, probably as propaganda 
against King, who was being considered for the appointment to 
the Court of St. James.^^ Senator Barbour of Virginia, who had 
been King's opponent in the Senate argument on the matter, was 
called to account by King's son, Charles, and asserted that what 
he had said on that occasion "was stated as a mere rumor" and 
without pointing "to any particular individual, for none by name 
had been mentioned to him, so far as he then recollected." Ac- 
cording to Barbour, King had entered the fray of his own accord, 
becoming much excited and denouncing the rumor "as most idle 
and unfounded." After some attention to the matter in high 
quarters, including a cabinet meeting. President John Quincy 
Adams concluded that "henceforth Prince Henry of Prussia" 
would be " suffered to sleep in Peace. "^^ But the royal ghost has 
once more been aroused by a recent documentary discovery. 

Until this discovery General Steuben's reputed participation in 
the episode rested upon an anecdote related by Mr. Mulligan, 

30F. Kapp, Life of Steuben, 543. 

"Below, pp. 63-64. 

s2Kapp, op. cii., 585. 

^^See McLaughlin, The Confederation and the Constitution, 63-65. See also above, 
page 51. 

^In the debate on the revolutionary pension act of Feb. 4, 1822. See Barbour's 
account of it in King, Correspondence, VI, 645-646. 

*See King Correspondence, VI, 582, 644-647, for letter, etc., on the affair. See also 
J. Q. Adams, Memoirs, VII, SS, S6, 63-64; VI, 481. 

^There appears to be no real reason for connecting King with the episode. 
Instead he seemed to have feared that some of the Massachusetts delegates to the 
Federal Convention would be men who would propose some such desperate remed- 
ies. See King, Correspondence, I, 201. 



63] FROM THE WAR TO THE CONVENTION 63 

his secretary, many years after Steuben's death. Steuben's 
biographer, Frledrick Kapp, who heard the tale from Mulligan, 
considered the latter a trustworthy source despite the lapse of 
years since his association with the General.^^ Kapp relates that 
when "before the adoption of the present Constitution, in a 
circle of his [Steuben's] friends, the question of the form of govern- 
ment was discussed, and it was not yet decided whether the Presi- 
dent was to be vested only with the authority of the highest civil 
officer, or with the more princely privileges of the Dutch Stadt- 
holder, one of the party, addressing himself to Steuben, asked 
whether Prince Henry, of Prussia, would be willing to accept an 
invitation, and whether he would make a- good President? Steu- 
ben answered, 'As far as I know the prince he would never think of 
crossing the ocean to be your master. I wrote to him a good while 
ago what kind of fellows you are; he would not have the patience 
to stay three days among you'."^^ Steuben was on intimate 
terms with such men as Duer, Jay, Hamilton and others of their 
standing, some of whom may have been in the group at the time.^^ 
There is every reason to presume that Steuben took part in the 
affair. In the first place Prince Henry had been both friend and 
commander to Steuben in the days before the latter had trans- 
ferred his military activities to America.^^ Even if he believed 
that Henry would refuse the invitation he might well have been 
pleased to transmit such a compliment to the Prince. In the 
second place Steuben, despite his very valuable services in the 
Revolution, had been treated by Congress with ingratitude and 
even injustice.^^ In the third place, Steuben took a keen interest 
in both the theory and practise of governments^ Finally, his 
success in reorganizing the American army at a critical period 
during the War^^ may have led him to believe he could be equally 
helpful in reorganizing the government of his adopted country 
in the critical period succeeding the War. 

•^Kapp, Life of Steuben, xii, 584. 

^mid., 584. 

^'Ibid., 580-581. 

*mid., 60-61. 

*'^Ibid., ch. XXV. 

*^Ibid., 584. He wrote several articles on the prerogatives and duties of the 
chief executive officer under the republican form of government and was one of the 
active Federalists in New York politics. 

*mid., 526. 



64 '^monarchical" tendencies in the united states [64 

Several years ago there was discovered, in the Royal Prussian 
Archives at Charlottenburg, a copy of a letter written by Prince 
Henry to General Steuben in April, 1787. This find appears to 
have shed new light on the alleged invitation to the Prussian prince. 
Richard Krauel has given it to us as follows:^ 

''Monsieur de Stuben, general au service des Etats-Unis de 
rAmerique. En Amerique au Hanovre a 5 milles de New-York. 
Monsieur 

Votre lettre du 2 du mois 9^'^ m'est parvenue. Je I'ai regue 
avec tout le sentiment de la reconnaissance melee de surprise. 
Vos bonnes intentions sont bien dignes de mon estime, elles me 
paraissent Teffet d'un zele que je voudrais reconnaitre, tandis 
que ma surprise est une suite des nouvelles que j'apprends par la 
lettre d'un de vos amis, J'avoue que je ne saurais croire qu'on 
put se resoudre a changer les principes du gouvernement qu'on a 
etabli dans les Etats-Unis de TAmerique, mais si la nation en- 
tiere se trouverait d'accord pour en etablir d'autres, et choisirait 
pour son modele la constitution d'Angleterre, d'apres mon juge- 
ment je dois avouer que c'est de toutes les constitutions celle 
qui me parait la plus parfaite. On a I'avantage que si, comme 
dans tous les etablissements humains, il se trouve quelquechose 
de defectueux, qu'on pourrait le corriger et faire de si bonnes lois 
pour que la balance fut mieux etablie entre le souverain et les 
sujets, sans que ni I'un ni les autres ne pussent jamais empieter 
sur les droits alloues respectivement a chacun. II ne m'est pas 
possible de vous envoyer un chiffre, vous comprenez qu'il courrait 
les hasards des lettres et se trouverait entre les mains de ceux qui 
s'en saisiraient les premiers. Je vais cet automne en France, 
peut-etre y trouverais-je un de vos amis. Les Fran^ais sont 
jusqu'a cette heure les vrais allies des Etats-Unis de I'Amerique. 
II me parait que rien de grand pourra solidement se faire chez 
vous, a moins d'y faire concourir cet allie. Cela suffit. Monsieur, 
pour vous faire comprendre que c'est par ce canal que je pouvais 
recevoir a I'avenir les lettres que vous voudrez m'adresser. 

En vous assurant que je desire ardemment de vous donner 
des preuves de I'estime avec laquelle je suis. Monsieur, votre tres 
affectione ami." 

**In an article, "Prince Henry of Prussia and tlie Regency of the United States, 
1786," American Historical Review, XVII, 47-48. For the assignment of date to 
the letter see ibid., 48. 



6s] FROM THE WAR TO THE CONVENTION 65 

Krauel admits that the letter does not, at first sight, appear 
to be an answer to monarchical propositions. But he points out 
that the phraseology was intentionally general and indefinite to 
avoid detection by outsiders who might get possession of the letter. 
He notes that the answer shows that the missive from Steuben 
inclosed a paper from an American friend of Steuben's of a nature 
to astonish the Prince. He asserts that the enclosure obviously 
"related to a proposed fundamental change in the constitution of 
the United States." The praise bestowed by Henry upon the 
English constitution, according to Krauel's suggestion, indi- 
cates that the Prince had monarchy in mind as a model. Krauel 
lays much stress on the fact that a Prussian prince was being con- 
sulted in regard to the internal politics of the United States, and 
that the consultation w^as to be so confidential as to involve a 
request that the Prince send a cipher for its continuance. Krauel 
asserts that the inference is almost sure that Henry, in his letter, 
was actually referring to a monarchical project but suggesting a 
French prince for the role.'^^ Krauel admits that "strict proof in 
the legal sense" is lacking but concludes, "That the American 
writer of the letter which so astonished the prince was Nathaniel 
Gorham and that Gorham acted in a common understanding with 
his political party associates can scarcely be doubted longer."^^ 

The missing letter has not yet been found and perhaps never 
will be.*^ Unless it appears and is seen to be of the character 
ascribed to it by such an account as the one set forth above the 
episode to which it relates is no sure proof of the existence of mon- 
archical tendencies in the United States, although it m.ay serve as 
a tentative guide pointing towards some such conclusion. In the 
absence of the letter some insight may be gained by a study of the 
life and character of the American who is said to have written the 

« Krauel, op. cit., 48-49. 

'^Ibid., 51. Channing believes that Krauel has succeeded in demonstrating 
'the strong probability" that a "suggestion was made in 1786 by some one looking 
toward the offering of the regency of the new United States to Prince Henry of 
Prussia . . ." History of the United States, III, 475. Farrand says that Krauel 
"presents interesting evidence" on the subject. Framing of the Constitution, 174. 

*"The present writer has communicated with such authorities as Worthington C. 
Ford, Archer B. Hulbert, J. Franklin Jameson, and Samuel E. Morison, only to 
be told by each that he knows of the existence of no "Gorham Papers" that would 
bear upon this subject. ^Appeals to members of the Gorham family have brought 
similar replies. 



66 '^MONARCHICAL^^ TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES [66 

invitation to the Prince. Nathaniel Gorham was a leading figure 
among those citizens referred to as the "better kind of people," 
the ''orderly and industrious," the ''respectable," "rational," 
and "well-intentioned" who were suspected, in 1786, of leaning 
towards monarchy as a remedy for "vindicating" the much 
abused "dignity of government." An account of his life and 
public services^^ impresses one with his zeal for "good govern- 
ment" and his high standing among his constituents. He was 
born in Charlestown, Massachusetts, in 1738, and received his edu- 
cation in that town. His interest in history and in the biographies 
of great men, first evidenced in his school days, was maintained 
throughout his entire life.^^ About the close of the French and 
Indian War he entered business as a merchant in his home town.^^ 
He soon became a representative to the colonial legislature of 
Massachusetts and after that a member of the provincial congress 
and of the board of war. He served in the state constitutional 
convention of 1779.^^ About this time he acted as one of three 
commissioners who were influential in suppressing an incipient 
insurrection in western Massachusetts.^^ He was an active 
member of the Continental Congress in the years 1782 and 1783.^^ 
Some obscurity surrounds his movements for the next year. He 
was not in Congress and he may have been in Europe. Dr. Welsh, 
in an oration a few days after Gorham's death, refers to Gorham as 
having been requested by the sufferers from the Charlestown fire 
"to undertake a voyage to Europe" to solicit aid for the rebuilding 
of the town. Dr. Welsh does not state quite clearly that the trip 

*^For brief notices see Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention, III, 
87-88; Biographical Congressional Directory, 679; Lamb, Biographical Dict- 
ionary, III, 336; R. Hildreth, History of the United States, III, 460; American 
Historical Association Report, 1896, I, 704; Massachusetts Historical Society 
Collections, 7th ser.. Ill, 85-86, Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, Istser., 
XIX, 406, n. For longer accounts see Dr. Thacher, Sermon on the Death of N. 
Gorham, and Dr. Welsh, Eulogy to the Memory of N, Gorham. 

49Welsh, op. cit., 5-6. 

'^mid.y 5-6. 

^^Lamb, Biographical Dictionary, III, 336. See Massachusetts Historical Society 
Collections, ser. 7, III, 85-86 for the appointment of Gorham as a member of a 
Massachusetts commission to meet commissions from other states to consider 
problems connected with the war, July, 1780. 

•^^Welsh, op. cit., 10-11. 

^^Journals of the Continental Congress, XXIII,811. 821, etc.; Madison, iVo/^J, Jan. 
J5,Jan. 27, Feb. ll,etc., 1783. 



6/] FROM THE WAR TO THE CONVENTION 6/ 

was actually made.^ At any rate he again entered Congress in 
1785 and June 6, 1786, was elected successor to John Hancock as 
president of that body, a position he filled until February 2, 1787.^^ 
He was one of the Massachusetts delegates to the Federal Con- 
vention which framed our present constitution. He shared with 
Washington the honor of presiding at its meetings, acting as 
chairman of the committee of the whole.^^ He was an active sup- 
porter of the proposed constitution in the Massachusetts ratifying 
convention.°^ About this time he became associated with the 
** Phelps and Gorham's Purchase" of lands in western New York^^, 
the project for which he is probably best remembered today. In 
1791 he was made "supervisor of the excise in the Massachusetts 
district."^^ His chief public services in these last years appear to 
have been in the capacity of judge of the Court of Common Pleas, 
a position he resigned only a few days before his death in 1796.^° 
As to his character and reputation the few references that we 
find regarding them are entirely favorable. Dr. Thacher said 
that there were few men who had "filled so many and important 
offices . . . and ... to such general acceptance" and re- 
ferred to his "wisdom and integrity" as being well-known. Dr. 
Welsh enlarged upon the same topics when he declared that "Few 
men were more perfect in the art of rendering themselves agree- 
able to public bodies. His knowledge of men unfolded to him all 
the avenues to the heart." Praise was bestowed upon the clear 
mind and the prudent and conciliatory temper which Gorham pos- 
sessed.^^ Madison's notes on debates in the Continental Congress 
pictured Gorham as somewhat more assertive and less concilia- 
tory than does the above account. One of his colleagues in the 
Constitutional Convention of 1787 described him in the following 
terms : 

^Wdsh, op. di.,lL 

^Lamb, Biographical Dictionary, III, 336; Hildreth, History of the United States, 
III, 460. 
^^Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention I, 29-312, passim. 
^'Below, page 70. 

'^^Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, XIX, 406, n. 

^^ American Historical Association Report, 1896, I, 783, n. 

^oWelsh, op, c//., II. 

«^Thacher, op. cit., 21-22; Welsh, op. cit., 12. Compare Farrand, op. cit.. Ill, 87. 



68 '^monarchical" tendencies in the united states [68 

"Mr. Gorham Is a Merchant In Boston, high In reputation, and 
much In the esteem of his Country-men. He is a Man of very 
good sense, but not much improved in his education. He is elo- 
quent and easy in public debate, but has nothing fashionable or 
elegant in his style; — all he aims at is to convince, and where he 
fails it never is from his auditory not understanding him, for no 
Man is more perspicuous and full. He has been President of 
Congress, and three years a Member of that Body. Mr. Gorham 
is about 46 years of age, rather lusty, and has an agreable and 
pleasing manner."^^ 

A remarkable feature of the man is that he seems seldom to have 
committed his thoughts to writing. Not only does it seem im- 
possible to locate any collections of "Gorham Papers" but other 
collections of the period contain very few letters from Gorham. 
Even his letter book of correspondence as president of Congress is 
not to be found. Perhaps the prudence cited by his eulogist led 
Gorham to put little into writing and to preserve still less of what 
was written. Perhaps his preoccupation with action made him 
a poor correspondent and chronicler. Whatever the explanation, 
the fact remains a serious obstacle to a complete understanding of 
the man. 

Some idea of Gorham's political views can be gained from the 
many references to his part in congressional debates in 1783. 
Judging by these records he subordinated theory to practicabil- 
ity,^^ and believed In making a fair trial of one expedient before 
abandoning it for another.^^ He supported vigorous action by 
Congress,^^ but with the interests of his own state and section 
especially at heart. He went so far as to hint that the formation of 
a New England confederacy might become advisable.^^ In his 
service in Congress In 1782 and 1783 he had much provocation to 

^^William Pierce, of Georgia, whose character sketches of various members of the 
Convention are of considerable interest and value. See Farrand, op. cit.. Ill, 87. 

esMadison, Notes, for Jan. 15 [14], and Feb. 12, 1783. 

M/^/^., Jan. 15 [14]. 

65/^/^.,Jan. 27, Feb. 11. 

66/^/W., Feb. 21. 



69] FROM THE WAR TO THE CONVENTION 69 

be discouraged and disgusted with the inefficiency of the existing 
government.^' 

Gorham's position as presiding officer during most of his last 
term in the Congress of the Confederation has deprived us of the 
remarks he might otherwise have made in debates in the eventful 
year of 1786, the year in which his letter to Prince Henry is 
supposed to have been written. A few bits of data, however, are 
available. For instance we find that he was a member of a com- 
mittee appointed March 19, 1786, to attempt to persuade New 
Jersey to rescind a negative on a requisition proposal, New Jersey's 
action having caused ''great uneasiness" in Congress.^^ The 
matter was still troubling him after his election as President of 
Congress, judging from a letter addressed to him by Governor 
Bowdoin of Massachusetts, who wrote, "I am of opinion with you 
that unless the States are more attentive to the requisitions of 
Congress . . . the federal government must cease and the union 
with it." Bowdoin suggested that "such a catastrophe" might 
be prevented by an urgent application to Governor Clinton in 
regard to New York's action on the impost act.^^ 

The next year, as before noted, Gorham was a prominent 
member of the Federal Convention. The records show no attempt 
on his part to promote such a plan as the one concerning Prince 
Henry. He was always found, however, on the side of those who 
favored comparatively "high toned" measures.'^^ One remark he 
made may be of marked significance, namely, that "It is not to be 
supposed that the Govt will last long enough" to make the num- 
bers of representatives excessive, for "Can it be supposed that this 
vast Country including the Western territory will 150 years hence 
remain one nation?"'^ 

Soon after the close of the Federal Convention Gorham was ap- 
plying his energies towards the ratification of the new constitu- 

^^Madison, Notes, Jan. 24, Feb. 1 8, Feb. 20. Note especially the insulting conduct of 
the mutineers towards members of Congress, June 13-June 21. Gorham was doubt- 
less one of the fleeing Congressmen who adjourned to meet at Princeton. On con- 
ditions in Congress, 1786-1787, see King, Correspondence, VI, 199. 

^^Monroc, Writings, I, 124. 

^^Letter of June 24, 1786. Bowdoin and Temple Papers, II {Massachusetts 
Historical Society Collections, 7th ser., VI) 104. 

^°See Farrand, op. cit.. Ill, 660-661, for index references to Gorham's part in 
the Convention. 

^^Aug. 8, 1787, Farrand, op. cit., II, 221. 



70 '"monarchical^^ tendencies in the united states [70 

tion by the Massachusetts state convention. He sought and se- 
cured from Franklin permission to publish the latter's closing 
speech made in the Federal Convention, declaring it^a speech 
"calculated to prevent war and blood-shed. "^^ In the Massachu- 
setts convention he "vindicated the delegates to Philadelphia 
against the charge of exceeding their commission "^^ and "explained 
the nature of the President's office; the advantage of the responsi- 
bility of one man, &c."^^ Gorham expressed great joy at hearing 
of the ratification of the Constitution by Virginia. In a letter on 
the subject to Washington he wrote thus: 

"Although I am passing rapidly into the vale of years, and 
shall live to see but a small portion of the happy effects which I 
am confident this system will produce for my country, yet the 
precious idea of its prosperity will not only be a consolation 
amid the increasing infirmities of nature and the growing love 
of retirement, but it will tend to soothe the mind in the inevitable 
hour of separation from terrestrial objects."^^ 

There is a variety of evidence which supports the hypothesis 
that monarchical tendencies were developing in Massachusetts 
and perhaps other parts of the North towards the end of the 
Confederation period. In the summer of 1787 St. John de 
Crevecoeur, French Consul at New York, was visiting friends in 
Boston.'^^ Crevecoeur had spent much of his life in America" 
and was much interested in strengthening the connections be- 
tween France and the United States.^^ But July 22, 1787, he 
wrote,^^ "I wou'd not advise an European who is possessed of 

''^Thus he secured permission from Franklin to publish his closing speech in the 
Convention, and apparently found it effective propaganda. See Hays, Calendar 
of Franklin Papers, IV, 357, 361, and Franklin Papers, Miscellaneous, VIII, 1840. 

''Jeremy Belknap's notes on the Massachusetts ratifying Convention, Massa- 
chusetts Historical Society Proceedings, III, 302. 

-'mid., 301. 

75July 21, 1788, G. Bancroft, History of the Constitution of the United States, II, 
475. 

'^According to Julia P. Mitchell, St. Jean De Crevecoeur, 266. Crevecoeur 
spent "most of July, all of August, perhaps part of the autumn as well" in Boston. 

■'Ubid., 11-13. 

'^He had been active in establishing a packet service between the two countries. 

Ibid., 3. 

'^In a letter to William Short in Paris. The letter quoted is in the possession of 
the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. The present writer is indebted to Dr. 
Joljin W.Jordan,Librarian, for permission to have a copy made for use in this study. 



yi] FROM THE WAR TO THE CONVENTION 7 1 

some property to visit this Country just now. . . ." The 
reason he advanced was that '*it [is] made Extremely Precarious 
by the weakness of Gov! and the horrid abuse the people have 
made ot their Legislatif Power." After exclaiming over the 
** astonishing change" that had taken place **in the Laws & Gov! 
of y^ Americans" he added, "Some time I cant help wishing the 
Independants had been postponed to a more distant period — if 
the Federal Convention is able to accomplish nothing all will be 
Lost for the Seeds of broils & Contentions are ready to burst in 
many Places." A possible and even probable source for some of 
his ideas is revealed in a matter of fact postscript, **I saw yester- 
day Col. Humphreys^^ at Gov! Bodouin."^^ Knowing the aris- 
tocratic tendencies of these two men, and knowing that both had 
been following the Massachusetts uprising with keen interest and 
much forebodings^ \^ \^ wholly reasonable to conclude that they 
felt as pessimistic as did Crevecoeur. His half wish for a return 
of monarchy may well have been an echo of wishes he heard ex- 
pressed in Governor Bowdoin's presence. 

As late as April 1, 1788, the same writer made some yet more 
startling statements. ^^ One can read them today in the original, 
though only with great difficulty, since the letter in which they 
occur is written in an almost illegible hand.^^ The passage of 
greatest interest, when translated into English, reads as follows: 

"Would You believe, that in the 4 Provinces of New England 
they Are So weary ['*las"] of the Govt. . . . that they Sigh 
for Monarchy & that a very large number of persons in several 
Counties would like to return to English domination (?) — Lord 
Dorchester Gov! of Canada has Spies on All Sides, This City 

8°For Humphreys' aristocratic manner see F. Humphreys, Life of David Hum- 
phreys, III, 387, 429. 

^KDn Bowdoin see Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, 2d ser., XI, 291; 
Proceedings of American Antiquarian Society, n. s., XV, 223. 

82Above, p. 69, and Humphreys, op. cit., 1 ,373-374,378. Two letters from Creve- 
coeur to the Duke of Harcourt written at about the same period describe the 
political situation with much more reserve. C. Hippeau, Le Gouvernement de 
Normandie, III, 136-152. 

83Letter to William Short, New York, April 1, 1788, Short Papers. Manuscripts 
Division, Library of Congress. 

®^The poor penmanship is not characteristic of the other Crevecoeur letters in 
the Library of Congress. Miss Emily Mitchell, of the Manuscripts Division, 
kindly assisted in the reading of this letter. 



72 MONARCHICAL TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES [72 

[New York] is full of them.^^ . . .^ This Country Approaches 
an Epoch more . . . dangerous than that of the War. . . . 
I hope that this Store ["Masse"] of . . . good Sense for which 
this country is so distinguished, . . . will . . . make the bal- 
ance Lean to the right Side; it remains to be Known, how men 
who have been without restraint and law for so long a Time will 
Submit Themselves to the salutary restraint which is prepared for 
them." 

The interest in an English ruler, here indicated, became most 
evident during the sitting of the Convention of 1787 as will be 
noted in the following chapter. The passage has been quoted at 
this point, however, because of its description of the state of mind 
that seems to have suggested the Prince Henry plan. 

On December twenty-seventh, 1787, Nathan Dane remarked 
of the proposed constitution, ** I doubt whether it has monarchy 
enough in it for some of our Massachusetts men, nor democracy 
enough for others."^^ A few days later General Knox, to whom 
this letter had been addressed, wrote to Washington that perhaps 
many of the party **for the most vigorous government" [a party 
including about "three-sevenths" of the State] "would have been 
more pleased with the new constitution had it been still more 
analogous to the British Constitution."^^ This use of the term 
"monarchy" might, however, refer to such features, say, as a long 
term for senators or great powers for the president. ^^ For this 
reason an apparently less equivocal statement is of special inter- 
est. Such a statement was made by Benjamin Tupper^^in April, 
1787. Addressing Knox he wrote: 

^Compare letter of Nov. 9, 1787, to Jefferson in which Crevecoeur says he will 
even fight for the new constitution, despite his age, and if it fails he will try to 
leave the country for it "will become the scene of anarchy and confusion." 
Mitchell, op. cit., 338. 

^^In the passage omitted there seems to be an assertion that the whole country 
will fall, once a part has broken itself off, 

8^To General Knox, Essex Institute Historical Collections y XXXV, 89. 

^^Jan. 14, 1788, Drake, Life ansd Correpondence of Henry Knox, 97. 

^'The matter of definition has not become an essential part of this study up to 
this point. It will be considered in succeeding chapters. 

s°On Tupper see Appletons' Cyclopaedia of American 5/ojr^?^>^j, VI-VH, 180; 
Drake, The Cincinnati of Massachusetts, 489-490; McMaster, History of the Unit- 
ed States,!, 505-507,323. 



73] FROM THE WAR TO THE CONVENTION 73 

** Perhaps your Honor may remember that on my return from 
the Ohio I declared in favour of Majesty for which your Honor 
gave me a gentle check ... I cannot give up the Idea that 
Monarchy in our present situation is become absolutely necessary 
to save the States from sinking into the lowest abbiss of Misery. 
I have delivered my sentiments in all companies at this term, 
without reserve, and was, and am exceedingly pleased to find such 
a respectable number of my sentiments. I am clearly of Opinion 
if matters were properly arranged it would be easily and soon 
effected. The Old society of Cincinnati must once more consult 
and effect the Salvation of a distracted Country. While I remain 
in the Country [until removing to Ohio] I shall be a strong advocate 
for what I have suggested . . ."^^ 

Colonel Tupper was not alone in his theory that the "Order of 
the Cincinnati" might prove itself an instrument for some such 
plan. This was the very charge brought against it by its op- 
ponents.^^ But when one seeks to find expressions of the idea 
by the members of the society he is baffled. Written proof shows 
only that the Cincinnati kept up their esprit de corps and their 
support of orderly government. ^^ General Hull, who delivered 
the Independence Day address to the Massachusetts Cincinnati 
in 1788, rejoiced in the "happy prospect of bidding . . . fare- 
well to a feeble system, which could neither shield you from exter- 
nal invasion, or protect you from internal commotion. . ," 
Incidentally, before discussing the promise of relief in the new 
constitution, he took occasion to eulogize America's ally. King 
Lois XVI, concluding, " Illustrious Monarch, but more illustrious 
by your virtues than your crown, long may you live the patron of 
the rights of man — . . . and may your reign be ever glorious." 
He congratulated his hearers on the fact that peaceable remedies 
were being applied in the United States instead of **the mad 
career of the ancients" which overwhelmed "the most celebrated 

®^Quoted by A. E. Morse, Federalist Party in Massachusetts, 42, n. 5. 

^^For examples see Burke, " Considerations on the Cincinnati,'' especially pp. 
3, 4, 6-8, 11; Belknap Papers, I, {Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 5th 
ser., II) 277, 303, 307; S. Adams, Works, IV, 298-299; Drake, The Cincinnati of 
Massachusetts, 29, 34; Drake, Life of Knox, 146, 148; and Massachusetts Historical 
Society Proceedings, 2d ser., VIII, 178. For an amusing satirical attack see Frank- 
lin, fVorks (Smyth ed.), IX, 161-168. 

•^This was evidenced in their services against the Shays Rebellion. See especial* 
ly Knox toWashington, Jan. 14, 1787, Drake, Life of Knox, 148. 



74 "monarchical" tendencies in the united states [74 

republicks." Indirectly he praised the Cincinnati for having 
"chearfully relinquished their arms, when [their country's] safety 
was obtained" at the end of the War.^^ But there is a significant 
identity of leadership in a number of groups of the time, namely, 
the New England Cincinnati, the Newburgh Petitioners, and the 
members of the Ohio Company. ^^ The absence of written evi- 
dence does not prove that others thanVarnum and Tupper did not 
share their views.^^ Professor Hulbert, an undoubted authority on 
the correspondence of the promoters of the Ohio Company and allied 
enterprises, has said that " these men were close-mouthed business 
men; their objects and methods are rarely, if ever, stated in writing; 
adept in the art of communicating unessentials," they were "past 
masters in the art of refraining from writing at all."^'^ A letter 
of the type of the Tupper letter, then, was an unusual burst of con- 
fidence. General Tupper did not hear the Independence Day 
oration in which Varnum announced his faith that the new Con- 
stitution, once adopted and in operation, would cure the ills of the 
time,^^ but he probably would have subscribed to these senti- 
ments. 

If anybody is to be convicted of promoting a monarchical plan 
for any or all of the United States it must be on circumstantial 
evidence. Unless different data appear such conclusions as the 
following are probably the only justifiable ones: First, that 
letters of the period bear out later charges, and that some persons 
in the United States, at least up to 1788, actually favored a mon- 
archical government; second, that there is a reasonable probability 
that Gorham and some other leading citizens were ready to sup- 
port such a change; third, that although there was a report that 
the Governor of Canada was following developments with sus- 
picious care, the evidence, for the most part, points to the con- 
sideration of a Prussian, rather than an English prince ;^^ fourth, 

^Hull, Oration . . . to the Cincinnati, 14, 11, 20. 

^^A. B. Hulbert, Records of the Ohio Company, I, xl-xli, gives some suggestive 
statistics on this identity of leadership. Gorham does not appear to have taken 
part in these enterprises but must have been in touch with some of the participants 
through his activities in business and politics. 

s^Above, p. 47. 

^^Hulbert, op. cit., I, Ixxiv. 

^^Tupper did not arrive at Marietta till the month after this oration was deliver- 
ed. See Drake, The Cincinnati in Massachusetts, 490. 

^^jMore attention will be paid to this point in the following chapter. 



75] FROM THE WAR TO THE CONVENTION 75 

that as the tendency appeared to be almost entirely confined to 
New England, and this, too, at a time when the idea of the Union 
was too little advanced to be elevated to the end in itself that it 
later became, the plan may have been for a New England mon- 
archy, including in time New York;i°° fifth, that the known 
character and public record of the men involved proves the mo- 
tives to have been a desire for general security of property and 
**good government;" last, that the extreme caution which marked 
the utterances of the men probably most interested indicates that 
something of a "coup d'etat" was the only method thought 
feasible for the change, and this indicates that it was expected that 
the people would, in general, oppose the change at first, but that 
their aversion would in time be overcome by the benefits to be re- 
ceived in peace, order, and prosperity.^°^ 



^°°Dr. Samuel Eliot Morison, in a letter to the present writer, has said of the 
later secession movement in New England, "In all the correspondence regarding 
New England Separatism I have never seen any suggestion that the Northern 
Confederacy should be anything but a republic." Speaking of the Federalists in 
general, before 1788, he says that "there was a tendency" on their part "to grasp 
at the monarchical idea, as a drowning man grasps at a straw." See also H. 
Adams, Documents relating to New England Federalism. 

lo^See above, page 56. 



CHAPTER V 

MONARCHICAL TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES 

DURING THE FRAMING OF THE PRESENT 

CONSTITUTION 

The need of constitutional reform was sufficiently agreed upon 
in Congress by February 21, 1787, to produce a resolution that a 
convention be held "for the sole . . . purpose of revising the 
Articles of Confederation" and for reporting to Congress and the 
.state legislatures such provisions as they should agree necessary 
to ** render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of 
Government & the preservation of the Union. "^ The twelve 
states that appointed delegates^ were, in general, slow in getting 
them to Philadelphia, the meeting place, and it was not possible 
to organize the Convention until May twenty-fifth.^ From that 
time until September seventeenth the Convention was in almost 
daily session, with the exception of ten days of adjournment dur- 
ing which the Committee of Detail was to do its work."* A good 
deal of uncertainty existed among the delegates as to how far they 
.should go in changing the existing form of government. While 
the majority in the early days of the Convention apparently 
favored a less centralized form than the one later adopted one 
point was practically considered an established fact from be- 
ginning to end, namely, that the republican form should be con- 
tinued.^ 

^Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention, III, 14. (Many of the Farrand 
references to be used in this chapter could be made to other sources but for the sake 
■of convenience will be confined to the Records.) 

^Rhode Island sent no delegates. See Farrand, op. cit., Ill, 18. 

^See quotations from Washington's diary, ii?id., Ill, 20, 21, 26, and letter by 
King, ii?id., in, 26. 

^Farrand, op. cit., II, 128. 

^Farrand believes that the New Jersey plan "more nearly represented what 
most of the delegates supposed that they were sent to do" than did any other plan, 
and only the fact that it was not presented until the delegates had become ac- 

76 



77] DURING THE CONVENTION 77 

The existence of monarchical tendencies independent of the Con- 
stitutional Convention has been considered in the preceding chapter. 
It has also been asserted both by Americans outside and some- 
within the Convention that there were delegates who cherished 
monarchical ideas. Jefferson claimed that such delegates had 
sought to obstruct the progress of the Convention when they 
foresaw that its work was to be of a republican nature.^ Luther 
Martin, a delegate from Maryland, in an address to the legislature 
of his state, said that while few had openly advocated "one general 
government . . . of a monarchical nature,"^ there were "a 
considerable number," observed by himself "and many others of 
the convention ... as being in reality favorers of that senti- 
ment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavouring to 
carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could 
not be accomplished."^ In contrast to this Mr. Baldwin, a dele- 
gate from Georgia, after favoring Ezra Stiles with an account "of 
the whole Progress in Convention" left the latter with the im- 
pression that no "Members in Convention had the least Idea of 
insidiously layg the Founda of a future Monarchy like the Euro- 
pean or Asiatic Monarchies either antient or modern. But were 
unanimously guarded & firm against every Thing of this ultimate 
Tendency." On the other hand, Mr. Baldwin was later said to 
be one of those who declared that Hamilton had moved for a 
''King, Lords & Commons." ^ 

customed to certain more radical ideas prevented its acceptance. (Farrand, 
Framing of the Constitution, 89.) Compare Fiske, Critical Period in American 
History. See also Mason's statement, May 21, 1787, in Farrand, Records, III, 24.. 

^"The Anas," Jefferson, JVritings (Ford ed.), I, 158. Compare letter written in 
August, 1787, ibid., IV, 426. 

''He qualifies the statement by the phrase "under certain restrictions and limi- 
tations." 

^"The Genuine Information . . . Relative to the Proceedings of the . . . 
Convention;" Farrand, op. cit., Ill, 179. Connected with this assertion is a similar- 
one involving a list of twenty names of members of the Convention "for a Kingly 
Government." The tale permits various interpretations. Its importance at this 
point is merely that according to one account Martin based his charge upon a 
paper which was of uncertain meaning and which he obtained only indirectly from 
its author. See ibid.. Ill, 306, 320-324. 

^E. Stiles, Diary, Dec. 21, 1787, quoted in Farrand, op. cit., iii, 169. For Bald- 
win's connection with the charge against Hamilton see anonymous letter, Aug. 
30, 1793. Farrand, op. cit., Ill, 369. 



78 "monarchical'^ tendencies in the united states [78 

Some especially unequivocal statements on monarchical ten- 
dencies on the eve of the Convention are found among contem- 
porary communications ^^made to the Governor of Canada. "At 
this moment there is not a gentleman in the States from New 
Hampshire to Georgia, who does not view the present Govern- 
ment with contempt, who is not convinced of its inefficacy, and 
who is not desirous of changing it for a monarchy."^^ One class 
of the people of the States were said (somewhat illogically) to be 
proposing "a federal Government somewhat resembling the 
Constitution of the State of New York, with an annual Executive, 
Senate, and House of Assembly." The second class desired "a 
sovereign for life with two triennial Houses of Parliament," while 
the third wished to establish '*an Hereditary Monarchy with a 
form of Government as nearly resembling Great Britain as possi- 
ble."^2 While many of the first class looked to Washington as a 
candidate, *' those of the second and third . . . cast their eyes 
to the House of Hanover for a Sovereign" and wished '*for one of 
the King's sons."^^ The third class was described as the ablest 
and **most powerful" of the three. These monarchists viewed 
" their own system if successful as affording the fairest prospect of 
a respectable and stable Government," and had "already fixed 
upon two gentlemen to go to Great Britain upon this subject, when 
they judge that matters are ripe for it."^^ They looked forward to 
the Convention as furnishing them an opportunity " to know fully 

^"These communications were made to Lord Dorchester by his confidential agent 
in the States. (For an identification of the agent as Major Beckwith and a dis- 
cussion of his status, see the "Archivist's Report," Report on Canadian Archives, 
1890, p. xli.) Dorchester forwarded them to Lord Sydney (April 10, 1787) as 
"Certain Communications of a very interesting nature." The text is printed in 
Report on Canadian Archives, 1890, 91-99. 

^mid., 97. 

^^The following quotations are from the Report just cited, page 98, and In keeping 
with other material in the communications. 

'^^Ibid., 98. A later passage in the same paper refers to able men in the States 
who are "greatly divided in opinion upon this subject, whether they shall raise 
an American to this dignity, or procure a Sovereign from Great Britain, or from 
France." 

^^Ilfid., 98. It is possible that the writer meant to suggest as one of these Dr. 
Griffiths of Virginia, described as a friend of Washington and an associate of "men 
in office, as well as of many respectable individuals in different parts of the count- 
ry" and as "soon going to England, in hopes of being consecrated a Bishop." 
Uid., 99. 



79] DURING THE CONVENTION 79 

each others opinions, to form arrangements and to take such steps 
as [were] proper to give them effect." The motives for such radi- 
cal changes were expressed in various terms such as the "unsur- 
mountable" character of the "present public distresses," the fact 
that the existing federal government was "weakness itself," and 
they were summed up in the assertion that "the community in 
general" had been "finding from experience, that a Republican 
System however beautiful in theory, [was] not calculated for an 
extensive country. "^^ 

When the delegates were still arriving, preparatory to the open- 
ing of the Convention, George Mason of Virginia confided to his 
son that there were "some very eccentric opinions" about the 
work before them, and that "what is a very extraordinary pheno- 
menon, we are likely to find the republicans, on this occasion, issue 
from the Southern and Middle States, and the anti-republicans 
from the Eastern." He believed, on second thought, that this 
was easily explained by the fact that " the people of the Eastern 
States, setting out with more republican principles, have consequent- 
ly been more disappointed than we have been."^^ A few days later, 
after the sessions of the Convention had begun. Mason returned to 
the subject. "When I first came here, judging from casual con- 
versations with gentlemen from the different States, I was very 
apprehensive that soured and disgusted with the unexpected evils 
we had experienced from the democratic principles of our govern- 
ments, we should be apt to run into the opposite extreme . . . 
of which I still think there is some danger, though I have the pleas- 
ure to find in the convention, many men of fine republican princi- 

^5" Even the Presbyterian Clergy are become Advocates for Monarchy." Report 
on Canadian Archives, 1890, 98. 

16G. Mason to G. Mason, Jr., May 20, 1787, Farrand, op. cit., Ill, 23-24. Mason 
cites "occasional conversations with the deputies of different States, and with some 
of the general officers of the late army" in Philadelphia "for a general meeting of the 
Cincinnati" as his only sources of information up to that time. Compare E. 
Carrington's letter to Jefferson, June 9, 1787, as given in " Massachusetts Historical 
Society Proceedings " 2d ser., XVII. 465. Carrington, writing in New York, the seat 
of the Continental Congress, declared, "The Eastern opinions are for a total sur- 
render of the State sovereignties, and indeed some amongst them go to a monarchy 
at once. They have verged to anarchy, while to the southward we have only felt 
an inconvenience, and their proportionate disposition to an opposite extreme is a 
natural consequence . . .". 



8o "monarchical'' tendencies in the united states [8o 

ples."^^ A further statement by Mason on the subject will be 
noted in a later connection. 

The "Pennsylvania Packet "for June 13, 1787, printed an arti- 
cle which had originally appeared in a Boston paper. It is 
doubly significant.^^ It portrays, rather sympathetically, the 
course of reasoning that had led "men of speculation and refine- 
ment"^^ to declare that" a Republican government was impracticable 
and absurd . . . cursed with inherent inefficiency . . . and 
that property was more precarious [under it] than under a despot.'" 
They had said that a despot "is a man, and would fear the retalia- 
tion of his tyranny. But an enthusiastic majority, steeled against 
compassion, and blind to reason, are equally sheltered form shame 
and punishment." Thus they had seen "with complacency, the 
stupid fury of Shays and his banditti, employed to introduce a 
more stable government whose powers they predicted, would soon 
be lodged in the hands of abler men. They raved about monarchy, 
as if we were ripe for it; and as if we were willing to take from the 
plough-tail or dram shop, some vociferous committee-man, and 
to array him in royal purple." The author refers to monarchical 
tendencies in such an assured way that his words rather strengthen 
a belief that charges were founded on facts.^^ In the second place 
it is significant that, from the time and place of its second appear- 
ance, it would be connected, in the minds of its readers, with the 
Federal Convention then in session at Philadelphia. The article 
not only declares "that our king, whenever Providence in its 
wrath shall send us one, will be a blockhead or a rascal,"^^ but 
continues with a series of arguments to prove that the United 
States should not adopt a monarchy. Thus, "The idea of a royal 
or aristocratic government for America is very absurd. It is 
repugnant to the genius, and totally incompatible with the cir- 

i^arrand op. cit„ III, 32. Compare letter by W. Grayson, May 24, 1787, ibid.,. 
Ill, 26. 

^^From the Independent Chronicle printed at Boston, according to the heading, 
and signed "Camillus;" Pennsylvania Packet. ^nn^YS, 1787, p. 2. See also ibid.^ 
Jan. 31, 1787, p. 2; Feb. 15, 1787, p. 3. 

^^They are further characterized as "most sincere lovers of their country" and 
"not the men to subvert empires." 

2°The idea that the monarchists looked "with complacency" upon the Shays. 
Rebellion would exonerate the Massachusetts Cincinnati from the charge, since 
they were active in opposing Shays and his forces. 

^^Apparently the writer had in mind some local demagogue rather than a widely 
adrnired European prince such as Henry of Prussia. 



8l] DURING THE CONVENTION 8 1 

cumstances of our country. Our interests and our choice have 
made us republicans — We are too poor to maintain, and too proud 
to acknowledge a king. The spirit of finance and the ostentation 
of power would create burdens — These would produce the Shay's 
and Wheelers'. The army must be augmented — Discontent and 
oppression would augment of consequence." At this point the 
writer checked himself, only to start on another line of argument. 
"But this is mere idle speculation — for every honest man is surely 
bound to give his support to the existing government until its 
power becomes intolerable. A change, though for the better, is 
always to be deplored by the generation in which it is affected. 
Much is lost, and more is hazarded. Our republic has not yet 
been allowed a fair trial. The rebellion has called forth its powers 
and pointed out most clearly the means of giving it stability, let 
us, therefore, cherish and defend our constitution; and when time 
and wealth shall have corrupted it, . . . posterity may perform 
the melancholy task of laying, in human blood and misery, as we 
have done, the foundation of another government." He con- 
cluded with a declaration which was also a reminder and warning: 
"We who are now upon the stage, bear upon our memories too 
deep an impression of the miseries of the last revolution to think 
of attempting another." 

A study of the speeches and actions of the delegates does much 
to determine to what extent they deserved the accusations of 
Jefferson or needed the advice of "Camillus." Randolph, of 
Virginia, on June first argued against unity in the executive as 
"the foetus of monarchy." There may have been an underlying 
meaning in Wilson's answer that "The people of Amer [ica] did 
not oppose the British King but the parliament . . . not . . . 
Unity but a corrupt multitude. . . ."22 Some days later Mason is re- 
ported as asking, "Do gentlemen mean to pave the way to heredi- 
tary Monarchy?" and hoping " that nothing like a monarchy would 
ever be attempted in this Country," for the people never would 
"consent to such an innovation. "^^ 

In the meantime Franklin had quite calmly advanced the idea 
that from the general trend of human affairs the United States 
would eventually become a monarchy, and that the best that the 

^Farrand, op. cit., I, 66, 71. Wilson was arguing at the time for a three years 
term and immediate reeligibility for the chief executive. Ibid., I, 68. 
^mid., I, 101-102. 



82 ''"monarchical" tendencies in the united states [82 

Convention could do was to postpone the event.^^ Randolph^^ 
and Mason^^ could not view the situation with such philosophical 
sangfroid, and refused to sign the Constitution on the grounds 
that it would end in ** monarchy or a tyrannical aristocracy." 
The "great diversity of sentiment" in the Convention to which 
Nicholas Gilman referred July thirty-first, included an advocacy 
of **high toned Monarchy" by 'Vigorous minds and warm Con- 
stitutions. "^^ Elbridge Gerry, on August thirteenth, wrote to 
General Warren that he sincerely hoped that the proceedings of 
the Convention, when complete, would "not be engrafted with 
principles of . . . despotism" which "some, you and I know, 
would not dislike to find in our national constitution. "^^ Never- 
theless, about the middle of August, there appeared in a Phila- 
delphia paper an apparently authorized statement which read as 
follows: "We are informed, that many letters have been written 
to the members of the foederal convention from different quarters, 
respecting the reports idly circulating, that it is intended to es- 
tablish a monarchical government, to send for the bishop of Osna- 
burgh, &c., &c. — to which it has been uniformly answered, tho' 
we cannot, affirmatively, tell you what we are doing, we can, 
negatively, tell you what we are not doing — we never once thought 
of a king."^^ It is generally conceded that Hamilton's speech of 
June eighteenth contained the most "monarchical" ideas ad- 
vanced during the Convention, yet Hamilton later stated that he 
"never made a proposition in the convention which was not con- 
formable to the repubHcan theory. "^^ 

2^Farrand, op. cit., I, 83 ". . . there is a natural inclination in mankind to Kingly 
Government. It sometimes relieves them from Aristocratic domination. ... It 
gives more of the appearance of equahty among Citizens, and that they like." 
Compare Mr. Williamson's remarks, July 24th, i. e., "It was pretty certain 
he thought that we should at some time or other have a King; but he wished 
no precaution to be omitted that might postpone the event as long as possible. — 
Ineligibility a 2^ time appeared to him to be the best precaution." 

^li^U., II, 564, 631, and Conway, Edmund Randolph, 86. 

26Farrand, op. cit., I, 101, and II, 632. 

•'Ubid., Ill, 66. 

•'Hbid., Ill, 69. 

"From the Pennsylvania Journal, August 22nd, ibid. ,111, 73-74. (The same not- 
ice appeared in the Pennsylvania Packed, Aug. 20, 1787, p. 3.) Compare A. Mar- 
tin's letter to Governor Caswell, Aug. 20th, ibid.. Ill, 73. The Bishop of Osna- 
burgh was the second son of George III. 

3°Extract from J. C.Hamilton, i7/j/oryo/ Mi? United States, Farrand,o_p.f;/.,III,368. 



83] DURING THE CONVENTION 83 

The apparently conflicting statements as to ''monarchical" 
tendencies in the Convention are traceable, at least in part, to 
differences of definition. Hamilton, in the "Syllabus of the 
Federalist" emphasized the fact that "republic" had been "used 
in various senses" and "applied to aristocracies and monarchies," 
referring to Rome, with its kings; Sparta, with a senate for life; 
the United Netherlands, with its stadtholder and hereditary 
nobles; Poland and Great Britain with aristocratic and monarchi- 
cal institutions.^^ In the Convention he said, "As long as offices 
are open to all men, and no constitutional rank is established, it is 
pure republicanism. "22 This concise definition is in no way in- 
consistent with the longer and more farrious one by his one time 
colleague and later opponent, James Madison. ^^ 

In his sketchy notes in the "Syllabus of the FederaHst" Hamil- 
ton said that "monarch" was a term applied to a ruler indepen- 
dent of those governed.^ In the Convention he said, ''Monarch 
is an indefinite term. It marks not either the degree or duration 
of power. If this Executive Magistrate [the one he had pro- 
posed] wd. be a monarch for life — the other propd. [proposed] by 
the Report from the Committee of the whole, wd. be a monarch 
for seven years. "^^ 

Probably many persons at the time considered "monarchy" 
and "tyranny" as almost interchangeable. Hamilton himself 
in the first of the two statements just cited ^^ was thinking of 
monarchy in this sense in a style which contrasts with his concep- 
tion of it when, at other times, he declared the British monarchy 

^The Federalist (Ford ed.), xliii. 

32Farrand, op. cit.„ I 432. 

^^" ... a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the 
great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices 
during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to 
such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from 
an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; . . . It is sufficient for 
such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly 
or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of 
the tenures just specified." The Federalist (Ford ed.), 246. 

^Ibid., xliv. 

'SFarrand, op. cit., I, 290. 

^'Compare his warning, ". . . if we incline too much to a democracy, we 
shall soon shoot into a monarchy." Ii?id., I, 432. 



84 "monarchical" tendencies in the united states [84 

to be the best form of government in the world.^^ Paterson of 
New Jersey, in opposing a measure unfavorable to the small states, 
said he "had rather submit to a monarch, to a despot, than to 
such a fate."^^ Wilson recognized and refuted this association of 
terms by saying, "Where the Executive was really formidable. 
King and Tyrant^ were naturally associated in the minds of peo- 
ple," but "where the Executive was not formidable" the legisla- 
ture and tyranny "were most properly associated. "^^ In line 
with this was an assertion made by McClurg of Virginia. He was 
"not so much afraid of the shadow of monarchy as to be unwilling 
to approach it; nor so wedded to Republican Govt, as not to be 
sensible of the tyrannies that had been & may be exercised under 
that form. It was an essential object with him to make the Exe- 
cutive independent of the Legislature."^^ 

It was both asserted^^ and denied*^ that a "unity of the Execu- 
tive . . . would savor too much of a monarchy." One delegate 
went so far as to declare that "a single Magistrate . . . will be 
an elective King, and will feel the spirit of one. He will spare no 
pains to keep himself in for life, and will then lay a train for the 
succession of his children."''^ 

Many of the delegates apparently regarded long and certain 
tenure so fundamental a characteristic of monarchy that they re- 
fused to adopt a long term of ofRce for the President.^ Thus 
Mason "considered an Executive during good behavior as a 
softer name only for an Executive for life," and warned the assem- 
bly that" the next would be an easy step to hereditary Monarchy."^^ 

Extensive executive powers spelled monarchy, actual or po- 
tential, to the minds of many. Mr. Mason admitted that a mon- 
archy possessed secrecy, dispatch, and energy, the advantages 
urged for a single executive, "in a much greater degree than a re- 
public."^® He opposed a complete veto for the executive on the 

37Farrand, op. cit., I, 288. 

^^Ibid., I, 179. 

^^Ibid., II, 300-301. Compare his words on June 16th, ibid., I, 254. 

^Hbid., II, 36. 

"As by Randolph. See ibid., I, 74. 

^As by Wilson. See ibid., I, 66, 74. 

"sMr. Williamson of North Carolina. Ibid., II, 101. 

«See ibid., II, 35-36. 

^Ibid., II, 35. 

i^Ibid.,l, in. 



85] DURING THE CONVENTION 85 

grounds that it would tend to constitute a monarchy more danger- 
ous than the British Government — "an elective one."^^ Mr. Rut- 
ledge "was by no means disposed to grant so great a power" as 
the appointment of judges "to any single person" because, as he 
saidj "The people will think we are leaning too much towards 
Monarchy. "^^ Gerry opposed the appointment of the sen- 
ate by the national executive as "a stride towards monarchy that 
few will think of!"^^ The monarchical character of the war 
powers of the executive did not elude Charles Pinckney's watch- 
ful eye. Powers of peace and war in the executive "would render 

the Executive a Monarchy, of the worst kind, towit an elective 
one."^o 

With these ideas as to what the members of the Convention 
did or did not consider monarchical characteristics one may the 
more profitably consider the so-called Hamilton plan.^^ Its mon- 
archical character is largely a matter of definition.^^ 

It will be recalled that Hamilton denied having made any 
"proposition to the convention which was not conformable to the 
republican theory. "^^ Yet, according to Madison's notes, Hamil- 
ton " acknowledged himself not to think favorably of Republican 
Government" and "addressed his remarks to those who think 
favorably of it, in order to prevail on them to tone their Govern- 
ment as high as possible. "^^ The conflict of ideas in Hamilton's 
mind may well be summed up in his own words, "I fear Republi- 
canism will not answr. [answer] and yet we cannot go beyond 
it."^^ Hamilton felt that one branch of the government could well 
be especially devoted to the representation of the "poorer order 
of citizens."^^ His plan provided for an assembly elected by the 

^^Farrand, op. cit., I, 101. 

^mid.,l, 119. 

^mid., I, 152. 

^^Ibid.y I, 64-65. Compare Randolph's statement, ibid., II, 67. 

"This formed the chief part of a speech which he made in the Convention June 
ISth. See ibid., I, 282-293. See also his remarks June 26th, ibid., I, 424, 432, 

^^See interpretations by Farrand, Framing of the Constitution 88; Von Hoist, 
History of the United States, I, lll;Krauel, "Prince Henry of Prussia", ^wmraw 
Historical Review, XVII, 50. 

"Above, p. 82. 

's^Farrand, op. cit., I, 424. 

^mid., I, 303. 

^mid., I, 424. 



86 "monarchical" tendencies in the united states [86 

people, "on a broad foundation. "^^ He did not propose, however, 
that the only check on the democratic assembly was to be in a 
democratic senate and a democratic chief magistrate. Thus he 
proposed that "one body of the legislature be constituted during 
good behavior or life" and that the executive have a similar 
tenure.^^ The vast extent of the country "almost led him to 
despair" of the establishment of a republican government.^^ 
His expedient against the operation of centrifugal forces was to 
have the national executive appoint the state governors and to 
give to these latter an absolute veto over the state legislatures.^^ 
This he considered not unrepublican since the national executive 
himself received his election, though indirectly, from the people.^^ 
Much has been made of Hamilton's expressed preference for the 
British constitution.^^ He declared he would "go to the full 
length of repubhcan principles" in order to approach as near as 
possible to "the excellency of the British executive."^^ But 
Hamilton was not a man to make any government an end in itself. 
He wished to approach the British form because he was con- 
vinced that "nothing short of such an executive can be efficient."^* 
Hamilton, under the existing circumstances, did not even desire 
to transfer the British monarchical form intact to American soil. 
He believed at this time a maxim he later expressed by saying that 
"what may be good at Philadelphia, may be bad at Paris, and ridic- 
ulous at Petersburgh,"^^ a formula which, of course, could be re- 
versed and made to include London. His real desire seems to 
have been to combine the separation of powers and the stability 
of the British form with the representative feature of. a republic 

e^Farrand, op. cit., II, SS3-SSA, I, 291. 

^^Ibid., I, 300. 

^Ubid,, I, 288. 

^mid., I, 293. 

^^Sceibid.y 1,292. Compare Journal of Ihe Convention, 113. The "good behavior'* 
members of the national legislature were to be chosen by electors. Farrand, op, 
cit., I, 291. 

62See, for examples, ibid.,l, 288-289, and Jefferson, Writings (Forded.),!, 166; IX, 
295; X, 34. 

«3Farrand, op. cit., I, 299-300. 

^Ibid., i, 299. 

^Letter to La Fayette, Jan. 6, 1799; Hamilton, Works (J. C. Hamilton ed.), 
VI, 388. 



87] DURING THE CONVENTION 87 

and the popular participation consistent with democracy, and thus 
to meet the peculiar needs of America. 

The form of government described by Hamilton might well ap- 
pear a sort of elective monarchy or stadtholdership and as such 
immediately antagonize his fellow citizens. Aside from the very 
general prejudice in America against such forms, due to an exalta- 
tion of repubHcan theory, the unhappy experiences of the Dutch 
with their stadtholder and the Poles with their elective monarch 
were well known.^® Yet there are grounds on which to take issue 
with the conclusion that Hamilton presented his views with no fur- 
ther hope nor purpose than to counterbalance the New Jersey plan 
and to reach a happy medium between the two." Hamilton^^ 
"hoped Gentlemen of different opinions would bear with him 
. and recollect the change of opinion on this subject which 
had taken place and was still going on." He reminded them that 
it **was once thought that the power of Congs [Congress] was 
amply sufficient to secure the end of their institution. The error 
was now seen by every one . . . This progress . . .led him 
to anticipate the time, when others as well as himself would join" 
in the assertion that the British Government was the only one in 
the world which united "public strength with individual security." 

John Adams was always sure that his "Defence of the Con- 
stitutions of the United States," which reached America and was 
republished there on the eve of the Conventions^ did much to 
make the Convention a success. ^^ Despite its later unpopularity 
as "monarchical" propagandas^ the book was certainly well re- 
ceived at first.s^ The comparative readiness of most of the dele- 
gates to be guided by the "long experience" of the mother coun- 

«See Farrand, op. cit., I, 90, 92, 102-103, n., 326-327, 449, 476; II, 9, 31, 67-68, 
202, 541; and I, 290-291, 459; II, 30, 31, 109-110. 

"^See Farrand, Framing of the Constitution, 87, 89. 

"^According to Madison's record of his speech on June 18th, 'Pzwdind, Records^ 
I, 288. 

^^See Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 5th ser., IV, 332; Jay, Corres- 
pondence, III, 247. 

"°See John Adams's recital of testimonials to this effect by Mr. Dickinson, Gov- 
ernor Martin, and others. Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 5th ser., IV, 
332-333. 

'''^Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, 2d ser., XV, 118-119; C. F. 
Adams, Life of John Adams, 433. 

'"^Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, 2d ser. XV, 118; Jay, Corres- 
pondence, III, 251; Jefferson, fForks (Washington ed.), II, 128. 



88 "monarchical" tendencies in the united states [88 

try" was founded on the Americans' familiarity with Blackstone, 
Montesquieu, and Locke,^* as well as with their practical experi- 
ence under the type of government portrayed by them. But 
Adams's presentation of the old ideas came at a psychological mo- 
ment, and must have been effective in promoting the change of opin- 
ion which Hamilton believed he observed. The " Defence " praised 
the British constitution to an extent to satisfy the heart of Hamil- 
ton himself. 

Some of the delegates who agreed with Hamilton in dreading 
too much democracy were such strong believers in states' rights 
as to be out of sympathy with Hamilton's entirely nationalistic 
plan.'^^ But there were others in the convention who very likely 
were deterred from full sympathy with Hamilton's plan by the one 
fear of risking ''what was then deemed the last chance for a res- 
pectable union, on a scheme which would be hopeless of accept- 
ance."'^^ A survey of the position of these men will follow." 

It has been said that John Dickinson "frankly joined that mi- 
nority which was outspoken in its belief in a monarchy — an 
action that comported with his refusal to sign the Declaration of 
Independence and his reluctance, to embark upon the stormy sea 
of Revolution. "^^ Not long after the opening of the Convention 
he remarked "that a firm Executive could only exist in a limited 
Monarchy ... A limited Monarchy he considered as one of the 
best Governments in the world. ... It was certain that equal 
blessings had never yet been derived from any of the republican 
form."'^^ But he perceived that a "limited monarchy was out of 
the question," because of the "spirit of the times" and the "state 
of our affairs," and because it was impossible to create "by a 
stroke of the pen "a "House of Nobles," which he considered essen- 
tial to this form of government. He therefore looked to remedying 
the republican form in such a way as to make it more perfect than 

"See "Great Britain" in "General Index," Farrand, op. cit., Ill, 661. 

7*See New International Encyclopaedia, III, 363; XVI, 198; XIV, 276. 

'^H. C. Lodge, Alexander Hamilton, 61. 

''mid., 61. 

^^In the present chapter the writer has used parts of several chapters in her 
earlier (unprinted) thesis in which a study was made of "Monarchical Tendencies 
in the United States from 1782 to 1787." 

^^C. A. Beard, Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, 194. 

^^Farrand, op. cit., I, 86-87. Reread comments on Dickinson's views on govern- 
ment, above, p. 19. 



89] DURING THE CONVENTION 89 

it had proved to be in the republics of the ancient world.^^ He 
doubtless voted for a good behavior tenure for the executive as a 
means to this end.^^ 

Gorham's attitude towards monarchy at the time of the Con- 
vention is of peculiar interest in view of his supposed connection 
with the Prince Henry of Prussia affair. His only reference to 
monarchy, so far as we can learn from the records, was made in 
supporting the proposal that the central government should 
guarantee a republican constitution to each state. He observed 
that it would be strange that the general government should *'be 
restrained from interposing" to subdue any rebellion that might 
take place in a state, for "At this rate an enterprising Citizen 
might erect the standard of Monarchy in a particular State, might 
gather together partizans from all quarters, might extend his views 
from State to State, and threaten to establish a tyranny over the 
whole."^" His manner of speaking indicates that he considered 
an attempt at monarchy by no means impossible or impracticable 
but does not suggest any sympathy with the idea. It does, how- 
ever, suggest something as to the course that might once have 
been considered in connection with the "monarchical plot" of the 
preceding year. 

Rufus King, whatever may have been his attitude towards a 
proposal for importing a foreign prince, certainly favored the 
strongest proposals made in the Convention. He was one of the 
three delegates who, on June fourth, voted for a complete negative 
for the executive.^^ On June first he upheld a seven year term^^ 
for this official and later, when this term was negatived, he expressed 
anxiety lest too short a term be adopted. ^-^ On July twentieth he 
is reported as saying that the executive "ought not to be impeach- 
able unless he hold his office during good behavior, a tenure which 
would be most agreeable to him; provided an independent and 
effectual forum could be devised" for impeachment.^^ On the 
other hand, his suggestion on July twenty-fourth, that the execu- 

8°Farrand, op. cii., I, 87. 

82July 18, 1787, /^/^II,48. 
^mid., I, 108. 

ssjuly 19th, ibid., II, 59. 
^Uid.,U, 67. 



90 '^monarchical" tendencies in the united states [9a 

tive term be twenty years, since "This is the medium life of 
princes," is noted by Madison as "possibly . . . meant as a 
caricature" of the immediately preceding suggestions for terms of 
eleven and fifteen years. ^^ Hamilton felt sure that King under- 
stood his point of view for during his absence from the Conven- 
tion, in the latter part of August, it was King whom he asked to 
keep him informed of any new developments.^^ 

A motion for a good behavior term for the executive was made 
on July seventeenth by James McClurg of Virginia. ^^ His ex- 
pressed object was to make this official independent of the legis- 
lature.^*^ Mr. Broom of Delaware "highly approved" the good 
behavior motion. ^^ Apparently neither of these men was an 
effective speaker or particularly influential in the Convention. ^^ 

Hamilton later pointed out that Madison voted for the "highest 
toned" feature he had proposed. ^^ Not only did Madison vote 
for good behavior tenure for the executive^^ but he supported it, 
with considerable caution,^^ during the debates. But in a foot- 
note he explained, "This vote is not to be considered as any cer- 
tain index of opinion, as a number in the affirmative probably 
had it chiefly in view to alarm those attached to a dependence of 
the Executive on the Legislature, & thereby facilitate some final 
arrangement of a contrary tendency.' ^^ As he said in "The Feder- 
ahst," Madison was convinced that "no other form [than a Re- 
pubHc] would be reconcilable with the genius of . . . America; 
with the . . . principles of the Revolution; or with that . . . 
determination which animates every votary of freedom to rest all 

^Farrand, op. cit., II, 102 and n. 

^^Ibid., Ill, 70. Note that King was later a leader of the Nationalistic party. 
New International Encyclopaedia, XIII, 241. 

s^Farrand, op. cit., II, 33. 

^mid., II, 36. 

^mid., II, 33. 

82See Pierce, "Character Sketches," ibid.. Ill, 9S, 93. 

93/3/W., Ill, 368-369, 398. 

^Ibid., II, 36. 

®^For example he recorded that his support of McClurg's motion was due to his 
"particular regard" for the mover Ibid., 11,34-35. See his remarks on impeach- 
ment on the same occasion. 

^Ibid., ri, 36. Six states voted in the affirmative, four in the negative. 



91 ] DURING THE CONVENTION 9I 

our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self- 
government. "^'^ 

At the time when Gouverneur Morris was named minister to 
France George Mason deprecated his appointment on the grounds 
of Morris's political heresy. ". . .in his place, as a Member 
of the federal Convention in Philadelphia," wrote Mason, "I 
heard him express the following Sentiment. — Ve must have a 
Monarch sooner or later.* [tho' I think his word was a Despot] 'and 
the sooner we take him, while we are able to make a Bargain with 
him, the better."^^ Yet in debate Morris declared himself **as. 
little a friend to monarchy as any gentlemen. He concurred 
. . . that the way to keep out monarchical Govt, was to establish 
such a Republ Govt, as wd. make the people happy and prevent a 
desire of change.^^ It is difficult to discover what means this 
"fickle and inconstant"^^^ delegate really favored as attaining 
this end. On July sixth he said, ''We should either take the 
British Constitution altogether or make one for ourselves. "^°^ 
On July seventeenth he seconded McClurg's motion for a good be- 
havior tenure, expressed "great pleasure" at hearing of "so 
valuable an ingredient," and was even "indifferent how the Exe- 
cutive should be chosen, provided he held his place by this ten- 
yj.g "102 f }^is was at a time when the appointment of the ex- 
ecutive was to be by the legislature. Two days later he was 
advocating election by the people and a two year term.^^^ Earlier 
in the Convention Morris had approved a life tenure for the Sen- 
ate and appointment of senators by the executive.^°^ 

^The Federalist (Ford ed.), 245. For further remarks by Madison on mon- 
archy see Farrand, op. cit., I, 70; II, 35. 

'^Mason to Monroe, Jan. 30, 1792. Monroe Papers. Manuscripts Divisionj^ 
Library of Congress. 

''Farrand, op. cit., II, 35-36. 

"opierce, "Character Sketches," ibid., Ill, 92. 

^^mid., I, 545. 

^^Ibid., II, 33. 

^^^Ibid., II, 54. The direct reason for this stand was his desire to avoid im- 
peachments. Morris believed a two year term would in fact be indefinitely ex- 
tended so long as the magistrate "should behave himself well." Ibid., II, 54. 
The good behavior tenure had been voted down in the meantime. 

^^Ibid.y I, 512-513. 



92 ^^monarchical" tendencies in the united states [92 

Read of Delaware, though from a small state, favored a strong 
national government,^^^ appointment of the Senate by the chief 
executive^^^ and absolute negative for the executive,^^^ and a good 
behavior tenure for the Senate.^^^ His delegation voted for a 
good behavior tenure for the executive. ^"^^ 

Finally, the question may arise as to whether Hamilton ex- 
pected support from Washington. Although Hamilton quite 
possibly knew of the outcome of the Nicola affair, he may have 
had reason to believe that Washington had been gradually tend- 
ing towards stronger measures. ^^° At any rate, his expectation 
that, although he had not compared his ideas with Washington, 
the latter would receive them with courteous consideration,"^ 
was not disappointed. The answer to Hamilton's letter of July 
3d reveals sympathy and understanding on the part of Washing- 
ton, who thanked the former for his letter, and wished that he 
were back in the Convention, since the crisis was ** important and 
alarming." Washington almost despaired "of seeing a favorable 
issue to the proceedings of our convention," felt contempt for 
''narrow-minded" men who opposed a "strong and energetic 
government," and believed that their contention that the people 
would not accede to the form proposed was only an excuse for 
their opposition. Most important of all is his conclusion that 
"admitting that the present sentiment is as they prognosticate, 
the proper question ought nevertheless to be. Is it, or is it not the 
best form that such a country as this can adopt ^""^ As presid- 
ing officer of the Convention Washington had little opportunity 
to express his views on the points at issue. 

We have said that Hamilton's proposals were the most "mon- 
archical" of any made in the Convention and that while not voted 

lo^Farrand, op. cit., I, 136, 202, 463. 
^^Ibid., I, 151. 

^^Ubid.y II, 200. 

"8/^;W., I, 409-421. 

^°Ubid., II, 36. He was later reputed a "monarchist" by some persons in his 
home state. See Rodney, Diary, Mar. 22, 1801. Manuscripts Division, Li- 
brary of Congress. 

^^°Such a tendency is suggested by a study of Washington's correspondence from 
July, 1786, through March, 1787. Washington, Writings (Ford ed.), XI. See above 
page 57. 

"^Hamilton to Washington, July 3, 1787, Works (J. C. Hamilton ed.), I, 436. 

ii2July 16, 1787, Washington, Writings (Ford ed.), XI, 162. 



93] DURING THE CONVENTION 93 

Upon as a whole some parts appeared as motions and received con- 
siderable support. Hamilton professed to believe that popular 
opinion might also come to support such ideas. In his speech of 
June eighteenth he declared that "a great progress [had] been al- 
ready made'* and was "still going on in the public mind." This led 
him to believe that in time the people would be "unshackled from 
their prejudices," and ''be ready to go as far at least" as he pro- 
posed.^^^ A fortnight later, in his passage through the Jerseys, 
he believed he saw evidence that an ** astonishing revolution" had 
already taken place in the minds of the people, and that they had 
come to desire "something not very remote from that which they 
had lately quitted." He wrote, "These appearances, though 
they will not warrant a conclusion that the people are yet ripe for 
such a plan as I advocate, yet serve to prove that there is no 
reason to despair of their adopting one equally energetic, if the 
Convention should think proper to propose it." ^^'^ Jefferson later 
asserted that the monarchical ideas of Hamilton and other dele- 
gates, being noised abroad among the people, were responsible 
for their "strong opposition to the conventional Constitution."^^^ 
But Jefferson's prejudice against his great opponent may have 
colored his impressions just as Hamilton's prejudice in favor of 
his own views may have lent his impressions a rosy tinge. The 
truth seems to be that public opinion of the period was relatively 
unformed and unfathomable. Contemporary observations on 
political movements were chiefly confined to the writings of 
political leaders who in that day, far more than now, formed a 
class distinct from their constituents. When we seek to know the 
public mind through the delegates' impressions of it we are again 
baflled, for these impressions were often contradictory. Madi- 
son was not alone in his assertion that it was impossible to know 
the public will on the object of the Convention. ^^^ Wilson sensi- 
bly pointed out the danger that the sentiments of "the particu- 
lar circle in which one moved," be "mistaken for the general 



voice. 



117 



"3Farrand, 0/). <:/■/., I, 291. 

*i*Letter to Washington, July 3, 1787, Hamilton, Works Q. C. Hamilton ed.), 
I, 435-436; (Lodge ed., VIII, 175-176). 
iisjefferson, Writings (Ford ed.), I, 159. 
"«Farrand, op. cit., I, 215. 
"^Ubid., I, 253. 



94 "monarchical" tendencies in the united states [94 

While professing that the people's opinions could not be known 
on particular points, Madison was convinced that "In general 
they believe there is something wrong in the present system that 
requires amendment," and that if the Convention's plan should 
fail the people, in despair, would ** incline to Monarchy. "^^^ Gerry, 
on the contrary, held that the mere savour of despotism would 
alarm the people.^^^ Mason admitted that **the mind of the peo- 
ple of America, as elsewhere, was unsettled as to some points" 
l)ut insisted it was ''settled as to others," one of which was **an 
attachment to repubhcan Government." The basis of his con- 
clusion was the general agreement of the state constitutions in 
the matter.^2^ Mr. Gerry did not hesitate to announce, ** There 
were not 7^ part of our fellow citizens who were not agst. every 
approach towards Monarchy."^^^ 

Hamilton's notes for June 1st include a clear and interesting 
•outline of Randolph's speech of that date. The part pertaining 
to public opinion is as follows: 

** I Situation of this Country pecuhar 

II — Taught the people an aversion to Monarchy 

III All their Constitutions opposed to it 

IV — Fixed character of the people opposed to it 

V — If proposed 'twill prevent a fair discussion of the^lan."^^^ 

The situation, as it appeared to Madison, is summed up in his 
letter to Jefferson of September 6th, as follows: 

"Nothing can exceed the universal anxiety for the event of the 
meeting here. Reports and conjectures abound concerning the 
nature of the plan which is to be proposed. The public however 
is certainly in the dark with regard to it.^^^ The Convention is 
■equally in the dark as to the reception wch. may be given to it on 
its publication. All the prepossessions are on the right side, but 

"sparrand, op. cii., I, 220-221. 

^'Ibid., I, 220. 

^""^Ibid., I, 339. 

^Ibid., I, 425. 

^Ibid., I, 72. 

^^The lady who is reported by McHenry to have asked Franklin ,"Well Doctor 
■what have we got a republic or a monarchy?" was certainly "in the dark." Her 
question, however, betrays no special anxiety. Ibid., Ill, 85. 



95] DURING THE CONVENTION 95 

It may well be expected that certain characters will wage war 
against any reform whatever. ^^4 

There were two classes among the people who, more than any 
others, were said to entertain thoughts of monarchical govern- 
ment for the United States. These were the Cincinnati and the 
Loyalists. The most definite charge against the former was prob- 
ably that made by M. Otto, French charge d' affaires at New York. 
He reported that the Cincinnati were "interested in the establish- 
ment of a solid government" since under a feeble one they had not 
received their pay. Their desire was to consolidate the states and 
to "place at their head . . . Washington with all the preroga- 
tives of a crowned head." This they threatened to do by force as 
soon as they should be "convinced of the futility of the Conven- 
tion.'' Otto considered this project entirely absurd because of the 
feebleness and unpopularity of the Cincinnati. ^^^ 

The charge connected with the Loyahsts had wider connec- 
tions, being bound up with the behef in some quarters, that the 
Convention might set up a monarchical government and invite a 
British prince to the throne. These rumors became so current in 
the midsummer of 1787, and members of the Convention were so 
phed with questions about it that an unofficial, but seemingly 
authorized, denial was inserted in a Philadelphia paper.^^s ^ 
similar report, circulating in Europe, was indignantly denied by 
William Short^^^ an American living in Paris. Short ridiculed the 
charge as being as incredible as a report would be which claimed 
that the English people,weary of existing burdens and disturbances, 
wished to "return under the dominion of the Dukes of Normandy 
^ . . & had solicited the King of France to take them under his 
protection ..." He based his denial in part upon the fact that 
"nothing of the sort had been heard of within any part of the 

^^These were the men holding state offices under the Articles of Confederation. 
:See Hamilton's letter to Washington, July 3, 1787, Hamilton, Works (Lodge ed.), 
Vin, 175. Madison's letter to Jefferson is in Farrand, op. cit., Ill, 11-1^. 

^25Written in New York, June 10, 1787, by M. Otto to Count de Montmorin, 
rsecretary of state for foreign affairs. Farrand, op. cit.. Ill, 43-44. Otto's suspicions 
may have been aroused by the presence of numerous members of the society at 
Philadelphia at the time of the Constitutional Convention. They were, however, 
attending their own regular convention. 

i26Above, page 82, n. 29. 

"^On Short's career abroad see Appletons* Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 
V,516. 



96 "monarchical^^ tendencies in the united states [96 

United States, judging by letters he had received from that 
country as late as September nineth of that year [1787]. "^^^ 
Short could not have made this last statement the following sum- 
mer for by that time he must have received the statement by 
Crevecoeur that "a very large number of persons" in New Eng- 
land ''would like to return to English domination. "^29 j^ fact, by 
the opening of the new year (1788) Short's American correspon- 
dents had led him to believe that astounding strides "towards a 
toleration of Monarchical" principles had already been made.^^° 
That similar reports received credence in British official circles is 
certain. Lord Sydney, writing at Whitehall, September 14, 1787, 
addressed Lord Dorchester as follows: 

"The report of an intention on the part of America to apply for 
a sovereign of the house of Hanover has circulated here;^^^ and 
should an application of that nature be made, it will require a very 
nice consideration in what manner so important a subject should 
be treated. But whatever ideas may have been formed upon it, 
it will upon all accounts be advisable that any influence which 
your lordship may possess should be exerted to discourage the 
strengthening their alHance with the house of Bourbon, which 
must naturally follow were a sovereign to be chosen from any 
branch of that family. "^^^ 

Late in 1788 Lord Dorchester enclosed a memorandum of the 
Federal Convention in a letter to Lord Sydney. It mentioned 

^^Letter of Oct. 15, ll'^l , William Short Papers. Manuscripts Division, Library 
of Congress. 

^^Described above, p. 71. 

"This is indicated in Short's letter of January 31st, quoted below, page 100. 

"^Franklin, in France in 1785, wrote that Britain was circulating there tales of 
distress in America and desire for a "restoration of the old Government." [Letter to 
Jay, Feb. 8; Franklin, Writings (Smyth ed.) IX, 287-288.] For specimen of a similar 
tale in America see Pennsylvania Packet, Jan. 8, 1787, p. 2. Prince William Henry 
(not the "Bishop of Osnaburgh") apparently visited America late in 1786, judging 
by a newspaper item of his arrival at Halifax. {Ibid., Oct. 31, 1786, p. 2.) The 
military preparedness of Canada under Lord Dorchester was stressed in a news- 
paper article, June 23, 1787. {Ibid., p. 3.) 

i32Farrand, op. cit.. Ill, 80-81. This suggests that Lord Sydney gave considerable 
weight to Lord Dorchester's enclosure of April 10th. See above, p. 78. A somewhat 
similar communication of a later year may be found below, page 105. 



97] DURING THE CONVENTION 97 

''Colonel Hamilton's" plan, "that had in view the establishment 
of a monarchy, and the placing the crown upon the head of a 
foreign prince, which was overruled, although supported by some 
of the ablest members of the convention. "^^^ 

A letter of this general type, circulating in Connecticut, ap- 
parently in July and August, 1787, greatly interested i\lexander 
Hamilton. He set on foot an investigation of its source and re- 
ception.^2^ Colonel Humphreys reported that the letter had been 
"received and circulated with avidity" by the Loyalists "whether 
it was fabricated by them or not." He further declared that " the 
quondam Tories" had "undoubtedly conceived hopes of a future 
union with G. Britain, from the inefficiency of our Government." 
He had seen a letter, written at the time of the tumults in Massa- 
chusetts the preceding winter, "stating the impossibility of our 
being happy under our present Constitution, and proposing . . . 
that the effortsof the moderate, the virtuous, and the brave, should 
be exerted to effect a reunion with the parent State. He men- 
tioned, among other things, how instrumental the Cincinnati 
might be, and how much it would redound to their emolument. "^^^ 
Even if Humphreys' report was faithful to the facts the sentiment 
of the "quondam Tories" was not an effective factor so soon after 
the War. It will be recalled that thousands of them had left the 
country and that those who remained were in no position to put 
their ideas into effect. Hamilton, in September, 1787, said a 
reunion with Great Britain was "not impossible, though not much 
to be feared." He thought the "most plausible shape . . . 
would be the establishment of a son of the present monarch . . , 
with a family compact. "^^^ Later he pointed out the probability 
that such a compact would be opposed to the point of war by 
France, as too greatly increasing British resources. He added 
that the Americans would soon regain their independence, in any 
case.^^ 

^33EncIosed in letter of date Oct. 14, 1788, Farrand, op. cit., Ill, 354. The letters 
of Phineas Bond, British consul at Philadelphia in 1787, appear to contain no simi- 
lar report. See, for example, his letters of July 2 and September 20, 1787, 
American Historical Association Report, 1896, I, 539, 546. 

^^^Hamilton, Works (J. C. Hamilton ed.), I, 440. 

^^Ibid., I, 442-443. 

"''"Impressions as to the new constitution (Sept. 1787)/' Hamilton, Works 
(Lodge ed.), I, 402. 

i3-"Americanus" (Feb., 1794), ibid., IV, 277-279. 



98 '^monarchical" tendencies in the united states [98 

The proposed Constitution was made public in September 
when the Convention completed its work. Its reception by the 
public and the charges of "monarchism" against its first adminis- 
trators will be considered in the following chapter. 



CHAPTER VI 

MONARCHICAL TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES 

FROM THE CLOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL 

CONVENTION TO 1801 

During the sharply contested movement for ratification the 
Constitution was attacked from some quarters as a monarchical 
instrument.^ Thus George Mason, in the Virginia convention, 
advocating rotation in office for the presidency, said, ** . . .as 
it now stands, he may continue in office for life; or, in other words, 
it will be an elective monarchy."^ His colleague, James Monroe, 
agreed with him,^ while William Grayson thought such continu- 
ance "highly probable."^ Earlier in the convention Patrick 
Henry had delivered his famous denunciation of the Constitu- 
tion, namely, that "among other deformities ... it squints 
towards monarchy." He had gone on to say, "If your American 
chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him 
to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he 
be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the 
subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious 
moment to accomplish his design."^ Mr. Lowndes, in the South 
Carolina convention, declared, "On the whole, this was the best 
preparatory plan for a monarchical government he had read." 
It "came so near" to the British form that, "as to our changing 
from a republic to a monarchy, it was what everybody must 
naturally expect."^ 

^This was not a surprise to the framers, according to James Wilson, who said, 
"It was expected by many, that the cry would have been against the powers of 
the President as a monarchical power." Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitu- 
tion, U,SU. 

mid., Ill, 485. 

mid.. Ill, 489. 

*7^;W.,III,491. 

^Ibid., Ill, 58-59. Grayson, Monroe, and Mason had noted foreign intermed- 
dling as an important factor in the situation. 

^Ibid., IV, 311. See also Maclaine, in North Carolina convention {ibid., IV, 135) 
and, in contrast, Smith, in Massachusetts convention {ibid., II, 102-103). 



99 



100 '"^monarchical" tendencies in the united states [ioo 

The private correspondence of the time contains some similar 
expressions. The wide circulation of such fears is suggested by 
the recognition of them by Edward Carrington of Virginia, writ- 
ing in New York/ and William Plumer, writing in New Hamp- 
shire.^ Richard Henry Lee, addressing Samuel Adams, de- 
nounced the proposed system as "elective despotism," and re- 
marked that chains were still chains, "whether made of gold or 
iron."^ William Short, following American developments from 
his residence in France, wrote to a friend in London that the pro- 
posed constitution "has converted the thirteen republics into one 
mixed monarchy — for notwithstanding the humble title of Presi- 
dent elective from four years to four years, he will have greater 
powers than several monarchs have." He feared not so much 
the immediate danger as that "the President of the eighteenth 
century" would "form a stock on which will be engrafted a King 
in the nineteenth."^^ In January, 1788, Short declared to Gray- 
son that "the proposed Constitution" and "a great part of what 
is written on it" led him to believe that "the Citizens of America 
[hadl made in three years, larger strides towards a toleration of 
monarchical principles than it had been supposed possible they 
should have made in as many centuries. "^^ His friend Nelson, 
in a letter written at Wllliamsburgh, in March of that year, cited 
foreign precedents to prove that the presidency would become 
an hereditary office. He believed he would accept the Constitu- 
tion without hesitation could the president become ineligible for 

'To Jefferson, Oct. 23, 1787, Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, 2d 
sen, XVII, 482. 

^To D. Tilton, Dec. 16, 1787, William Plumer Letters. Manuscripts Division, 
Library of Congress. 

sQct. 5, 1787, Letters of R. H. Lee (J. C. Ballagh ed.), II, 445. 

^^Short to J. Cutting, Nov. 15, 1787, William Short Papers. Manuscripts Divi- 
sion, Library of Congress. Short was in close communication with Jefferson at this 
time. Another American on the Continent, Bishop by name, professed to be so 
apprehensive that the Constitution would be ratified that he frequently dreamed 
of being a slave. He suspected that the Constitution was "only a Trojan Horse." 
(Letter to Short, Amiens, Jan. 31, 1788, William Short Papers.) The unscrupulous 
character of the man makes the words of little consequence, except as a picturesque 
statement, or perhaps parody, of the fears of his correspondent. 

"Jan. 31, 1788, ibid. Compare with Grayson to Short, Nov. 10, 1787, Ibid. 



lOl] FROM THE CONVENTION TO 180I lOI 

reelection. ^2 B^t elaborate arguments^^ were brought to bear 
upon such men. Later, after the acceptance of a bill of rights 
was assured,^^ they became supporters of the Constitution, al- 
though the first ten amendments did not meet their objections 
in regard to the office of president. 

In curious contrast to this antimonarchical opposition to the 
proposed Constitution stands a group of negotiations, along the 
frontiers, professedly looking to friendly monarchies for aid and 
patronage as a remedy for republican neglect. These projects, 
at one time or another, involved to some noticeable extent Ver- 
mont, Kentucky, Tennessee (the last only incidentally), and the 
settlements northwest of the Ohio river.^^' The most outstanding 
as well as the most baffling of them all involves James Wilkinson 
and other leading Kentuckians on the one side, and the officials 
of His Most Catholic Majesty of Spain on the other.^^ 

While the Convention at Philadelphia was devoting the mid- 
summer days of 1787 to the framing of an improved constitution 
for the United States, James Wilkinson was drafting a memoriaP'^ 
to the Spanish Government. Wilkinson's prestige and influence 

i2Mar. 13, 1788, William Short Papers. 

"Such as J. B. Cutting's long and interesting letter of Dec. 13, 1787. Cutting, 
among other things, declared the American Senate and House had enough power to 
balance even an hereditary President, and labored long to show that the Presi- 
dent's power was small as compared with that of the British King. Ibid. See 
also pamphlet by T. Coxe in support of the Constitution, An Examination of 
the Constitution. 

"See letters by Short, Mar. 16, 1788 and Jan. 28, 1790, by Cutting, Feb. [5] 
1790, by Nelson, July 12, 1788 and Dec. 17, 1789, William Short Papers-, by 
Benjamin Franklin, Oct. 22, Oct. 24, 1788, Writings (Smyth ed.), IX, 665-666, 676. 
Compare Von Hoist, History of the United States, I, 65. 

^^Georgia seems to have been but slightly involved, if at all. See, however, 
references by Lieutenant Governor Simcoe (of Canada) to dealings with General 
Elijah Clark of Georgia. Report on Canadian Archives, 1891, Upper Canada, p. 3. 
See also American Historical Review, XXI, 552, where S. F. Bemis points out 
these relations developed "in the period between [Clarke's] first disappointment 
over President Washington's Creek treaty of 1790. . . and his relations 
v/ith Genet in 1793 and trans-Oconee outbreak of 1794." 

^^Typical accounts of the Wilkinson Conspiracy and its background are found in 
H. Marshall, History of Kentucky, 11,188-189; I, 270, 282, 313; T. M. Green, The 
Spanish Conspiracy, 120-138, 149ff; R. M. McElroy, Kentucky in the Nation s 
History, 120-121, 131-136, 165 n. 2; N.S.Shaler, Kentucky, 98, 101, 137, 139. The 
American Historical Review, IX, 490-506, 749-766, contains some helpful accounts. 

"This first memorial was dated August 21, 1787. American Historical Review, 
IX, 748. 



102 "monarchical" tendencies in the united states [io2 

among the frontiersmen^^ entitles his propositions to some con- 
sideration. The substance of them was as follows: First, the 
Spanish king "should receive the inhabitants of the Kentucky- 
region as subjects and take them and their territory under his 
protection;" and second, "the inhabitants of Kentucky and the 
other settlements [along the rivers] emptying into the Ohio, who 
might desire to emigrate to Louisiana should be allowed to settle 
in that province."^^ 

The Spanish Council of State, late in the following year,^® 
formulated a reply which undertook to encourage the immigra- 
tion plan but not the more radical part of the memorial, since it 
was deemed "unadvisable" to consider the latter "until the 
Kentuckians attain the independence from the United States to 
which they aspire, although they should not be suffered to lose 
hope that in case of success they would be admitted [as subjects] 
. . . "21 These sentiments in the main pleased Wilkinson, ac- 
cording to his second memorial (September 17, 1789),22 since, as 
he said, recent changes in the United States^^ made immediate 
annexation impossible. However, he urged that the Spanish 
government grant such favorable commercial concessions to the 
western Americans as to win their friendship and confidence and 
thus pave the way for an ultimate political connection. In case 
such a connection should be made Wilkinson stipulated that 
Kentucky should enjoy "the right of local self-government".^ 
The far-reaching scope of the plan, geographically considered, is 
to be inferred from its author's plea that "secret and indirect 
agencies" should be employed to "accomplish the above-mention- 
ed separation and independence from the United States," and that 
"such a condition of affairs should not be confined to this region 

^^For a concise summary of Wilkinson's activities, questionable and otherwise, 
see Channing, The Jeffersonian System, 156. See also Shaler, Kentucky, 98, and 
especially McElroy, op. cit., 115-116. 

^^This summary is the one included in the written decision of the Spanish Coun- 
cil of State. American Historical Review, IX, 749. 

20November 20, 1788. Approved by the King December 1, 1788. Ibid., IX, 
749-750. 

''Ubid., IX, 749. 

22The second memorial is printed in ibid., IX, 751-764. 

231. e., the establishment of a new government under the federal constitution of 
1787. . 

"^"^ American Historical Review, IX, 751. 



103] FROM THE CONVENTION TO 180I IO3 

[Kentucky] alone, but should be set up more or less in all the 
settlements along the Ohio. . . ."^^ 

It will be recalled that Wilkinson later won acquittal from 
charges of disloyalty to the United States government. He then 
described his representations to Spain as wholly insincere and 
merely means to the end of winning commercial concessions for 
himself and his fellow Kentuckians.^^ 

If this be true, Wilkinson's earlier assertions that a group 
of leading westerners of his region were ready to help him bring 
Kentucky under the Spanish flag (in return for due commercial 
and other gains)^^ must be discounted equally with his own oath 
of allegiance to Spain.^^ On which occasion, if either, Wilkinson 
spoke the truth, whether or not any economic lure was powerful 
enough to lead American frontiersmen to bow down to an alien 
monarchy ,^^ are the only questions connected with the compli- 

^American Historical Review, IX, 753. Compare ibid., 754, 7 55-756. Wilkinson 
mentions by name the "settlements of Cumberland, Franklin, Holstein [editor's 
note "Holston?"], New River, Green Briar, Tiger's Valley, Monongahela, Allegh- 
any, and the settlements now forming to the northwest of the Ohio on the rivers 
Muskingum and Miami." Ii>id., IX, 755-756. An especially definite reference 
to the last two named is found in Wilkinson's proposed list of pensioners^ (dated 
September 18, 1789), ibid, 766. 

^^Shaler, Kentucky, 137, 139, gives a concise treatment of the trials. 

^^Wilkinson listed Harry Innes ("attorney-general and counselor at law; gets 
500 dollars a year from the state of Virginia"), Benjamin Sebastian ("lawyer from 
Virginia"), John Brown ("member of Congress"), Caleb Wallace ("one of our 
judges; enjoys a thousand dollars a year from the state of Virginia"), and John 
Fowler ("a man of influence"), with the comment, "These are my confidential 
friends and support my plan." He added the newly arrived General Lawsen to 
his list. In addition he named several prominent men under the titles, "These 
favor separation from the United States and a friendly connection with Spain," 
and, "These favor separation from Virginia but do not carry their views 
any further." American Historical Review, IX, 765. 

2^This is an elaborate document dated August 22, 1787. A translation appears 
in ibid.y IX, 496-491, 

2^The hatred of Great Britain and the enthusiasm for republican France shown 
in the Genet incident of 1793 go far to confirm a negative answer. For Genet's 
activities in Kentucky see McElroy, Kentucky in the Nation s History, 168, 186. 
The suspicion that the British in Canada encouraged the Indians in hostilities 
against the American frontier settlements naturally created much hard feeling. 
See for example, McElroy, op. cit., 177. The antifederalist agitation in Kentucky 
in 1798 and 1799 should be kept in mind in connection with the general subject 
under discussion. This movement would suggest that the Kentuckians would 



104 '^'^monarchical" tendencies in the united states [104 

cated story which directly concern a study of monarchical ten- 
dencies in the United States. These questions have not been and 
perhaps never can be answered with absolute conviction. They 
may, however, be made more intelligible by the reflection that 
similar ones may be asked about other leaders and other frontier 
regions of the United States. 

Acceptance of the protection of Great Britain was an alternative 
with the western settlers,^^ and that power had made overtures 
to the Americans,^^ according to General Wilkinson writing in 
September, 1789. The British officials, for their part, had reason 
to believe that there existed in the United States certain mon- 
archical preferences. The "Opinions and Observations of Differ- 
ent Persons Respecting the United States," a secret service re- 
port, forwarded to Lord Sydney by the Governor of Canada in 
October, 1788,^^ contained several items of this nature. For in- 
stance, "some of the ablest members of the convention" had 
supported Hamilton's plan which "had in view the establish- 
ment of a monarchy, and the placing the crown upon the head of 
a foreign prince."^^ Again, "The ablest men in the States are 
at this moment strongly prepossessed in favor of our form of 
government, and they view the constitution which they are 
straining every nerve to establish, rather as an experiment, paving 
the way for a more energetic one, than as a final settlement of the 
country. . . ."^^ 

As to Loyalists it was remarked that while "some of the most 
enlightened" had become Federalists, " from the persuasion that 
the re-union of the empire is impracticable," others were opposing 
the new constitution in the hope that the resultant distress might 
"produce what they have never lost sight of" [obviously reunion 

never have submitted to monarchical rule. On the "Kentucky Resolutions" 
see McElroy, op. cit., 211-264. 

^^ American Historical Review, IX, 752. Compare 766. 

3iln his second memorial to Spain (September, 1789), Wilkinson declared he had 
rejected "honors and rewards offered ... by Great Britain," and referred to 
flattering offers made to him " by Lord Dorchester through the medium of Colonel 
Conolly." Ibid., IX, 758. 

^"^Report on Canadian Archives, 1890, 100-106. 

^Ubid., 101. 

^Ibid., 101. Compare ibid., 102, "Amongst the number of objections to the new 
system raised by the advocates for a monarchy, . . . ." 



105] FROM THE CONVENTION TO 180I IO5 

with Great Britain or the establishment of a government similar 
to that of the mother country].^^ 

Several years later the lieutenant governor of Canada made 
some remarks and recommendations^^ which, taken apart from 
their context and away from their background, would be quite 
incomprehensible. "Should Congress adopt a Prince of the 
House of Brunswick for their future President or King, the happi- 
ness of the two nations would be interwoven and united — all 
jealousies removed & the most durable affections cemented that 
perhaps ever were formed between two Independent Nations." 

"This is an object worthy the attention of Great Britain and 
which many of the most temperate men of the United States have 
in contemplation. And which many events, if once systemati- 
cally begun, may hasten .& bring to maturity."^^ 

A study of the context suggests several significant facts. In the 
first place, the writer was much disturbed by the uncompromising 
spirit of the United States respecting the holding of the posts along 
the international boundary, the carrying on of trade and the 
wielding of influence among the Indians in the regions just south 
of the line.^^ In the second place, he was convinced that "until 
Messrs. Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton [should] have lost 
the direction of the . . . Confederation" no amicable settle- 
ment of these disputes, wholly fair to Great Britain, could be 
achieved. He declared that the overthrow of these administra- 
tors would be "less difficult to effect, by aiming at once to dissolve 
the Confederacy, than by any other secondary or indirect 
means."^^ In the third place, he credited the "general mass" 
of people of the United States with a "by no means defective" 
morality and good sense.**^ Finally, he urged that some "appeal 
to popular Reasoning must be made."^^ Simcoe's apparent hope 

^On the other hand a "large and respectable proportion" took "little or no part 
in the general politics of the day," but began, "notwithstanding to rise in the esti- 
mation of the country," and were" courted," by both federalists and anti-federalists. 
Report on Canadian Archives, 1890, 102. 

36" Lieutenant Governor J. G. Simcoe, Respecting Indians and Posts. Navy Hall, 
Niagara August 20th, 1792." Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections, l^^V^ , 
459-466. 

^Ibid., 466. 

^Hbid., 460-461. 

^Hbid., 460. 

'^Ibid., 465. 

«/^;W., 466. 



io6 "monarchical^^ tendencies in the united states [io6 

for a favorable outcome of such an appeal serves as something of 
a commentary on the convincing force of the reports on the ex- 
istence of pro-British sentiment in the States. 

The situation in "Kentucke and . . . Major General St. 
Clair's Government beyond the Ohio" was not overlooked in the 
''Opinions and Observations" of 1788. Doubt was expressed 
whether the new Congress would improve upon the old in respect 
to the assertion of authority over these frontier communities. 
The British observer referred to a report that some five hundred 
men, chiefly "officers and soldiers who served in the late conti- 
nental army," were about to plant a colony west of the Mississip- 
pi.^ They were "indifferent whether this measure may be agree- 
able to congress," they neither feared nor respected the Spaniards, 
and they were "desirious to open a friendly intercourse with our 
[the Canadian] government by the northern lakes" where they 
wished to carry on trade. All in all, "There [was] a general 
growing British interest in the states. . . ."^^ 

A few months later, in the spring of 1789, Lord Dorchester was 
able to forward to Lord Sydney the "Desultory Reflexions By a 
Gentleman of Kentucky,"'*^ which contained the following pass- 
age: "The poHtics of the western Country are verging fast to a 
crisis, and must speedily eventuate in an appeal to the patronage 
of Spain or Britain. No interruption can be apprehended from 
Congress, the seditious temper and jarring interests of the Atlantic 
States forbid general arrangements for the public good, and must 
involve a degree of imbecility, distraction and capricious policy, 
which a high toned monarchy can alone remedy;" but "the revo- 
lutions and changes necessary to reconcile the people to such a 
government, must involve much delay. Great Britain ought to 
prepare for the occasion, and she should employ the interval in 
forming confidential connexions, with men of enterprise, capacity, 
and popular influence, resident on western waters."*^ The mind 
of the Canadian governor and his correspondent in the home gov- 
ernment must have been somewhat prepared for such a proposi- 
ti, e., "upon the junction of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers on the northern 
bank." 
^"^Report on Canadian Archives, 1890, 103. 

^The author is identified as General Wilkinson by T. M. Green in his book, 
The Spanish Conspiracy, 297-298. 
^Report on Canadian Archives, 1890, 107-108. 



107] FROM THE CONVENTION TO 180I IO7 

tion by the observation, included in the list of reports for the pre- 
ceding year, that "a republican government does not seem calcu- 
lated for the genius and disposition of the people in the states/'^ 

The "Muskingum Settlements"^^ were reported^^ in 1790 to be 
"composed of disconnected" [sic]^^ Continental Soldiers and 
officers who were attached to the United States by no other tye 
but personal regard for the President,^*^ considering themselves as 
sacrificed by Congress and defrauded even in the sale of the lands 
they occupy."^^ This situation was suggested as the cause of 
their "extreme tenderness towards the British Government" 
in certain matters then at issue.^^ The "principal Body of People 
of Kentuckee" were "Friends of Great Britain," according to 
Lieutenant Governor Simcoe writing in 1791.^^ 

A forceful denial of the probability of the triumph of separa- 
tism, stated by a competent observer who admitted such an event 
to be a possibility, is found in a letter from "General Rufus Put- 
nam to Mr. Fisher Ames,"^ of Massachusetts. The Ohio Com- 
pany promoters, in seeking congressional grants in their behalf, 
had originally made much of the devotion to the federal union 
which, they said, characterized the would-be settlers of the north- 
west.^^ It is significant that Putnam, in attempting to prove the 

^Report on Canadian Archives, 1890, 103. 

*'^I. e., Marietta and neighboring regions. 

*^In an "Extract from a Private Letter from Detroit," signed "D," and indorsed 
"In Lord Dorchester to Mr. Grenville No. 74 of the 10th Novr. 1790." 

^^Discontented? 

^°One important reason for this regard was undoubtedly Washington's attitude 
towards the Ohio Company, an attitude of interest and encouragement. See 
W. P. and J. P. Cutler, Life of Manasseh Cutler, I, 144, 172-174. 

^^This statement is introduced with the words "It can do no harm to say that the 
Muskingum Settlements. . . ." 

^^I. e., in regard to a professed belief that British traders and not British officials 
were the source of the military supplies to Indians hostile to the United States. 
Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections, XXIV, 105. 

^^Lieutenant Governor Simcoe to Henry Dundas, August 26, 1791. The reason 
cited was the difficulty of trading to the southward, even after Spanish concessions, 
because of the hostility of the Indians in that quarter. Ibid., XXIV, 325. 

^*This letter was written on or before December 20, 1789, as Putnam refers to it 
in a letter of that date. He refrained from sending it to Ames until it should 
have been inspected by Cutler. Cutler, op. cit., I, 450, and II, 373-383. 

^mid., I, 121, 134, 147, and especially 304. 



io8 "monarchical^^ tendencies in the united states [io8 

improbability of separatism, does not mention this devotion but 
instead rests his argument on the assertion ''that it is and always 
will be the interest of the Western country to remain a part of the 
United States."^^ With a few simple but impressive arguments 
he shows that the Canadian government "can never suit [the] 
genius, nor be for [the] interest" of the westerners, and that "the 
advantage to be derived from the Spanish Government" is not 
"much better."^' He does, however, issue the following warn- 
ing: "I do not deny but what such circumstances may exist as 
shall not only make it the wish of some, but of all, the inhabitants 
of that country to be separated from the old States, . . should 
Congress give up her claim to the navigation of the Mississippi 
or cede it to the Spaniards, I believe the people in the Western 
quarter would separate themselves from the United States very 
soon. Such measure, I have no doubt, would excite so much rage 
and dissatisfaction that the people would sooner put themselves 
under the despotic government of Spain than remain the indented 
servants of Congress; or should Congress by any means fail to 
give the inhabitants . . . such protection as their present infant 
state requires . . . ; in that case such events may take place as 
will oblige the inhabitants of that country to put themselves under 
the protection of Great Britain or Spain. "^^ He also professes 
to believe that ambitious men, more interested in "the emolu- 
ments of office than the public good" are in this region as every- 
where and "may influence people to pursue, as the object of their 
happiness, measures which will end in their ruin."^^ 

Before accepting these assertions at their face value the cir- 
cumstances under which they were made must be called to mind. 
In the first place, no man held the success of the Ohio Company 
more dear than did Rufus Putnam.^^ In the second place, the 
assertions were made at a time when the project was handicapped 
by the delay in closing the land grant deal with Congress,®^ the 
inadequacy of military protection against the Indians,^^ and, in 

seCutler, op. cit., II, 377. 

67/^/^., II, 375. 

'mici., II, 377. 

^mU., II, 377. 

^°His interest may be traced, in good part, by following the references to him in 
the index to ii^U., II, 488. 

"See Hid., I, 445, 447, 449, 450. 

^^See, for example, il^id., I, 447-448. 



109] FROM THE CONVENTION TO 180I IO9 

common with their more southern neighbors, uncertainty as to the 
opening of the Mississippi to their trade.^^ Finally, the assertions 
were made in a letter, known to have been an object of special 
care to its author, and addressed t-o one of the most influential 
statesmen of a district reputed with some reason to entertain a 
degree of hostihty towards the development of the West. Under 
such circumstances Putnam could hardly be expected entirely to 
discredit reports of such strategic worth in a struggle for measures 
favorable to the western frontier settlements. On the other hand, 
Washington himself, a few years earlier, had written, ''The west- 
ern states (I speak now from my own observation) stand, as it 
were, upon a pivot. The touch of a feather would turn them 
either way. "^^ 

It has been pointed out that certain leaders of the Ohio Company 
such as Tupper and Varnum, could conceive of the establishment 
of a monarchical government in the United States.^^ Nicola, whose 
monarchical propositions to Washington have been discussed 
in an earlier chapter, associated with these propositions a plan 
for a mihtary colony in the West,^^ not unlike that of Picker- 
ing's which was a forerunner of the Ohio Company.^^ The 
present writer has been unable to establish any definite relation- 
ship between Nathaniel Gorham, suspected monarchist, and the 
Ohio group, but like them he was interested in vast land projects 
along the frontier.^^ He quite obviously beheved that separation 
would prevail in the West for in the Convention he said, "It is 
not to be supposed that the Govt will last long enough' ' to make 
the numbers of representatives excessive, for "Can it be supposed 
that this vast Country including the Western territory will 150 
years hence remain one nation ?"^^ Through his activities in 
state and national politics he must have come into close contact 
with some of the group. The evidence suggests that some general 
identity of interest appears among persons supposed to have con- 

63Cutler, op. cit., II, 374. 

^Washington to Governor Harrison of Virginia, October, 1784, ibid,^ II, 388. 

^See above, pages 73 and 47. 

*^See above, page 44. 

®Tor Pickering's plan, see Cutler, op. cit., I, 156-159. 

®^See above, page 67. 

^^Quoted above, page 69. 



no "monarchical" tendencies in the united states [no 

sidered monarchical institutions feasible for the United States.^" 
Incidentally, the possibilities of such a suggestion are tremendous 
for it points to the probability that many other like-minded per- 
sons were not averse to such institutions even though the occasion 
did not arise for an expression of their opinions on the subject. 

Other evidence is not lacking to indicate that separatism was a 
well recognized tendency at the time.'^^ The evidence suggesting 
that this spirit, in the West, involved a tolerance of monarchical 
institutions as a means to an end, though not as an end in them- 
selves, speaks for itself. One further episode deserves attention 
in this connection, namely, the final negotiations between the 
Vermont separatists and Great Britain. 

Vermont, by virtue of her unique position of practical inde- 
pendence,^^ was able to negotiate with the British in a more nearly 
official manner than could the other districts. Her motives for 
conducting such negotiations were similar to those of the West, 
namely, a desire for a convenient and unobstructed channel for 
her trade, and a distrust of Congress as a champion of her inter- 
ests. It has been said that "a strong party in the Sovereign State 
of Vermont was against joining the Union, and favored an alliance 
with Great Britain, or even return to British rule."^^ 

No year since the peace of 1783 had passed without negotiations 
between Vermonters and British officials.'^* The majority con- 
cerned petitions for a commercial treaty or other commercial con- 
cessions but some went much farther. Thus certain leaders of the 
Green Mountain State had, at the close of the War, declared them- 
selves in favor of annexation by Canada. 

^°See above, page 74. 

^^Washington had proceeded to urge the construction of thoroughfares for trade 
between coast and interior regions. In this connection it should be remembered 
that Washington was financially interested in western land projects. 

^^On this position see "Vermont as a Sovereign and Independent State, 1783 to 
1791," Vermont Historical Society Collections, II, 395-498, as well as the treatment 
of this period in any history of the state. 

"^^The American Historical Review, XXI, 547-560, prints an article on this theme 
by S. F. Bemis, under the title "Relations between the Vermont Separatists and 
Great Britain, 1789-1791." The documents upon which the article is based are 
described as a selection from "The Colonial Office Papers in the British Public 
Record Office" transcripts of most of which "are in the Canadian Archives at 
Ottawa, series Q." The author of the article consulted documents in both of 
these repositories. Ibid., 548. 

'Compare ibid., XXI, 548-550. 



Ill] FROM THE CONVENTION TO 1 80 1 III 

Ethan Allen, writing in 1788 a memorial full of defiance towards 
the United States, told Lord Dorchester that ''the leading men in 
Vermont [were] not sentimentally attached to a republican form 
of government. "^^ They were, however, " determined to maintain 
their present mode of it, till they [could] have a better, and expect 
to be able to do it, at least, so long as the United States will be able 
to maintain theirs, or until they can on principles of mutual in- 
terest and advantage return to the British government, without 
war or annoyance from the United States. "^^ 

Despite these protestations of attachment, the Vermonters did 
not receive the concessions which Ethan Allen sought." Hence 
another of the Allen brothers journeyed to England in the interest 
of the petition. In introducing Levi Allen^^ a curious and per- 
haps significant coincidence between his circumstances and those 
of James Wilkinson is worth noting. Wilkinson in his dealings 
with Spain had made much of the contention that concessions 
enabling him, individually, to convey goods through Spanish 
territory^^ and to sell them at low prices to the Kentuckians would 
be a powerful agent in developing a pro-Spanish political senti- 

^^ Allen to Lord Dorchester, July 16, 1788. Quoted in American Historical Review^ 
XXI, 550. Calendared with "liberal quotations," in Report on Canadian Archives^ 
1890, State Papers,210-211. 

Bemis calls attention to the interesting fact that "this was presented to the 
governor of Canada within a few months from the time when Wilkinson forwarded 
a similar communication to the Spanish governor at New Orleans." American 
Historical Review, XXI, 550. 

^^Allen goes so far as to say that "should the United States attempt a conquest 
of them" [the Vermonters], he presumes they would yield their independence and 
"become a province of Great Britain" just as they would "readily" have done so 
in "the time of General Haldimand's command, could Great Britain have afforded 
Vermont protection." Report on Canadian Archives, 1890, 211. 

'^Several important concessions were, however, made from time to time. (See 
Bemis, article cited, American Historical Review, XXI, 549, also letter fromSimcoe 
to Dundas, August 2, 1791, Report on Canadian Archives, 1889, 53.) But a commer- 
cial treaty, as desired by the Vermont petitioners, was declared impossible. 

■^^Levi Allen received a pension as a loyalist according to Lieutenant Governor 
Simcoe; Report on Canadian Archives, 1889, STi. For activities of a third brother, 
Ira, see above, page Zd. For an example of the united efforts of the Aliens see 
ibid., 1890, 210, (letter of July 16, 1788). Compare "The Allen brothers, Ethan, 
Ira, and Levi, were the most active and versatile of the separatist party. . . ." 
Bemis, op. cit., American Historical Review, XXI, 548. 

^^New Orleans and vicinity. 



112 '^monarchical" tendencies in the united states [II2 

ment in that region. ^^ Similarly Allen contended for such con- 
concessions as would enable him to bring English goods through 
Canada for sale at attractive prices in Vermont. ^^ Whether Allen 
and Wilkinson were really seeking to effect political arrangements 
for the general welfare, or whether their declared object was mere- 
ly a cloak for their personal ambitions is a legitimate but probably 
unanswerable question. W^hatever the answer Allen's methods 
acquire added interest when compared with those of the Kentuck- 
ian. On the whole the former's assertions were the bolder and 
more sweeping of the two. Thus Allen solemnly assured a Brit- 
ish secretary of state that during the Revolutionary War **at 
least three fourths" of the inhabitants of Vermont were loyal to 
the mother country and that ** those of the Inhabitants, who in 
the beginning of the frenzy . . even for a time opposed to 

His Majesty's Government, soon saw their error and would have 
been happy to have . . . returned to their Allegiance long be- 
fore the end of the war. . . ."^^ They were, according to 
Allen, still desirious of making this move but for "doubt with 
respect to its practicability." The fact that the writer claimed, 
even though without good reason,^^ to be ** authorized by Com- 
mission under the Great Seal of Vermont, pursuant to an Act 
of the General Assembly thereof, to negotiate a commercial and 
Friendly Intercourse between Vermont and his Majesty's Do- 
minions" must have given his words some weight. ^^ 

In one of his last communications on the subject, Levi Allen 
declared to Henry Dundas, home secretary at the time, that the 
"Principal men of Governor Chittenden and Allen's Party" 

^^American Historical Review, IX, 763. 

^^See especially the letter from Levi Allen to Lieutenant Governor Simcoe, 
November 19, 1791, Report on Canadian Archives, 1889, 56. A very similar letter, 
dated November 27, 1791, is printed in the American Historical Review, XXI, 559- 
560. 

,82Memorial of Levi Allen, May 4, 1789, American Historical Review,XXl,553. 
Allen even declared that due to Vermont's natural and advantageous commercial 
connection with Canada (dependent in turn on the "locality of Vermont, as well 
as the Disposition of its Inhabitants") the Vermonters had "earnestly hoped to 
have been incorporated as an appendage to the Province of Quebec, but those 
hopes were defeated by the boundary line of the United States as settled by the 
late Peace." Uid., 553-554. 

^^This point is treated in a footnote, il^id., XXI, 553. 

^^See Lieutenant Governor Simcoe's reference to this commission, Report on 
Canadian Archives, 1889, 53. 



113] FROM THE CONVENTION TO 180I II3 

had told him "to assure the British Court that Vermont was 
from local situation as well as from inclination firmly attached to 
them, and that whenever Vermont should find it necessary to 
join Britain or join Congress, they would positively join the 
former. "^^ 

For some time, until the British government had made sure that 
the United States would not break the peace in order to secure 
Detroit and the other border posts, that government, involved in 
the Nootka Sound controversy, found it worth its while to attempt 
to develop sentiment favorable to itself in Vermont, as also in 
Kentucky.^^ The governor of Upper Canada, indeed, continued 
to urge the extreme strategic importance of these states for some 
years longer.^^ But Vermont's acceptance of admittance into the 
Union, in 1791,^^ forced Levi Allen to admit the futility of further 
negotiations between his state and Great Britain.^^ Lieutenant 
Governor Simcoe's optimism could overlook even this event and 
forsee the development under proper tutelage, of a British interest 
in Vermont and Kentucky, as opposed to the rest of the Union. ^° 
Still later Simcoe reported that all of the people of Vermont®^ 
with whom he had spoken agreed that Vermont would ** support 
a neutrality" in case of war between the United States and Great 
Britain. ^2 A statement, apparently of the same period, preserved 

^American Historical Review, XXI, SSS. Similar declarations were made by 
Vermonters in 1794 according to Simcoe and Jarvis. Report on Canadian Archives^ 
1889, SI, 58. 

^Concisely treated, with footnote references, in the article by Bemis, American 
Historical Review, XXI, 551. Simcoe was especially solicitous about this matter as 
appears in his letter to Mr. Dundas, August 2, 1791. Report on Canadian Archives, 
1889, 54-55. 

87See Simcoe's letter to Mr. Dundas, August 5, 1794, ibid., 57-58. 

^^For expressions of Levi Allen's opposition to such action by Vermont see his 
letters to Dundas, August 9th and November 27th, 1791, American Historical 
Review, XXI, 557 and 560 respectively. The letter of November 27th contains a 
curious passage in which Allen ascribes Vermont's regrettable mistake in this 
respect to the death, absence, or defection of her leaders. Ibid., 560, but more 
forcefully given in Report on Canadian Archives, 1889, 56. 

^'^ American Historical Review, XXI, 560. 

^^Report on Canadian Archives, 1889, 54-55. 

^^He had described them earlier in his letter as "some very respectable people of 
Vermont." Ibid., SI. 
^Ibid., SI. 



114 '^monarchical" tendencies in the united states [114 

in the Canadian Archives,^^ quotes Governor Chittenden as saying 
"that if Congress takes a part in the War in favor of France I 
am sure Vermont will never accede to it but will make the best 
bargain they can for themselves ..." The Vermont exe- 
cutive was further quoted as follows; " . . . give [givej my 
compliments to Governor Simcoe, and tell him that the Governor 
and Council of Vermont are of the same opinion that they were in 
the year 1781 when Colonel Fay was . . . negotiating a union 
with Canada &c. &c. when the news of Lord Cornwallis's mis- 
fortune reached Vermont, which suspended the negotiation and 
finally put an end to it. That Vermont has nothing to gain by 
entering into a combination to defend the Sea Coasts, on the con- 
trary everything to lose — their Commerce (through Canada) 
ruined, their whole Country open to inroads of British Indians, 
&c."9^ 

The Vermont episode may be said to close the story of separatist 
movements in relation to monarchical tendencies. The Blount 
Conspiracy, so-called, of the middle nineties, although involving 
a military alliance between the western frontiersmen and the 
British^^ (against the Spanish possessions in the southwest), did 
not go to the length of political union as suggested in the Vermont 
and Kentucky negotiations. 

The leading features of these embryonic separatist movements^^ 
can be stated quite definitely despite the seeming impossibility 
of handing down a final decision on the motives and intentions 
which actuated them. These features may be summarized as 
follows: First and foremost, the avowed ascendancy. of economic 
interests over political preferences; second, a professed willing- 
ness for close association and even allegiance to a monarchical 
government to effect the aforesaid economic ends; third, the ab- 
sence of any desire to create monarchical institutions either for 

^^This is preserved in the same volume (Archives, series Q, vol. 281-1), and on 
a page close to Simcoe's letter to Dundas of August 5, 1794, entitled "Statement 
by Mr. Jarvis," and signed with Simcoe's initials, "J. G. S." Report on Canadian 
Archives, 1889, 58. 

''Ibid., 58. 

®^See concise statement by F. J. Turner in the American Historical Review, X, 
273-275, also 574-606. 

^This summary applies to the Vermont negotiations of 1780-1783, discussed 
above, pages 35 to 39, as well as to the various episodes considered in the pages 
immediately preceding the summary. 



lis] FROM THE CONVENTION TO 180I II5 

particular areas or for the United States as a whole; fourth, the 
restriction of the expression of what may be called monarchical 
leanings to a few "leading men" and the absence of any such ex- 
pression on the part of the people as a whole. 

No definite projects for the erection of a monarchy by the Fed- 
eralists during the twelve years of their control have ever been 
discovered. A special student of New England federalism (Dr. 
Samuel Eliot Morison), writes, ** I have never seen any evidence of 
a conscious trend to monarchy on the part of the Federalists even 
in their private correspondence, after 1789. . . . After the 
ratification of the Constit^ution the Federalists devoted their ener- 
gies to strengthening and energizing republican government. They 
realized that a monarchy in the United States would be an ab- 
surdity, and that the best chance of preserving the institutions 
that they believed in was to support the Federal and the State 
governments."^^ Yet these were the very years in which most of 
the "monarchical" accusations were made. The author of the 
"Life of John Marshall" has noted that in gathering and adjust- 
ing material for that work he was "profoundly impressed by what 
seemed to be the honest belief of many apparently sensible men 
that there was a monarchical movement" on foot. Again he 
says, "Undoubtedly there was a general fear that certain men were 
plotting to estabhsh a monarchy or at least that they preferred a 
monarchy to a repubhc, but this fear had been planted by politic- 
ians, sincere and insincere, in the minds of the people, the masses 
of whom at that time were singularly uninformed, suspicious and 
isolated."9» 

There seems to have been general agreement in 1789 that 
Washington had no thought of personal aggrandizement in ac- 
cepting the presidential chair. When the organizers of the new 
government showed some inclination to make it a presidential 
throne^^ the opponents of royal trappings found in Vice President 

®^In reply to questions by the present writer, Dr. Morison also writes, "I admit 
that there was more or less loose talk in high Federalist society about the super- 
iority of a monarchy over a republic and the likelihood that the logic of events 
would lead to monarchy, if not to military despotism. But this same sort of talk 
has been going on in society to this day." Compare footnote 100 above, page 98. 

^^Mr. Albert J. Beveridge in a letter to the writer. 

^^See account of Senate discussion. May 7, 1789, W. Maclay, Journal (E. S. 
Maclay ed.), 21. On titles see Madison, Writings (Hunt ed.), V, 369-370 n.; 
Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 5th ser., IV, 436-439; 6th. ser., IV, 432; 



ii6 "monarchical^^ tendencies in the united states [ii6 

Adams a closer target for reproach than the President. ^°^ As for 
the ceremony with which Washington surrounded himself, it was 
probably excused by most of the persons who would otherwise 
have opposed it, on the grounds that Washington's motives were 
pure and his situation novel and puzzling. -^^^ A member of the 
first Senate remarked of Washington, in May, 1789, that "Whether 
he will be able to retain his usual popularity, time must determine, 
but I am very much mistaken if he ever justly forfeits it."^°- 

By 1793 attacks upon Washington by the opposition press were 
becoming articulate. These attacks were closely connected with 
ultra-democratic enthusiasm for the French Revolution, and 
especially for the an ti monarchical stage it had attained by the 
time of the execution of the King. "Hundreds of examples might 
be given showmg the same supersensitive, silly, trivial, maudlin 
state of mind prevailing among a large section of the American 
public as prevailed in France, and which was derived largely from 
France. . . . Evidences of royalty were attacked. A medallion 
of George III on a Philadelphia church was ordered removed by the 
Democrats, because to their knowledge it had a tendency to keep 
young and virtuous men from attending public worship. "^^^ 
On the other hand, a good deal of respect is due to the obvious 
sincerity of many Americans who believed that a failure to assist 
the French revolutionists was nothing short of flagrant ingratitude 
in view of French aid to the American revoltionary cause. Wash- 
ington's proclamation of neutrality or rather, discontent with it, 
formed a rallying point for the opposition party which was gradu- 
ally forming in the United States. Its members were in no mood 
to be reminded that the royal government of France had been the 
source of French aid to the Americans and the signatory of the 
treaty of aUiance. They went so far as to accuse their President 

Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, 2d ser., XV, 129, 132; Wisconsin 
Historical Publications, LXIII, 97. 

"°See for example, Maclay, op. cit., 10-14. These pages afford an excellent 
illustration of the significance attached to monarchical formulae. 

^^mid., 15. 

^°2Paine Wingate, of New Hampshire, in a letter to Jeremy Belknap, May 12, 
1789. Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 6th ser., IV, 432. 

^^^These lines are quoted from a vivid, though perhaps too unsympathetic, por- 
trayal of the situation in C. D. Hazen's article "The French Revolution as Seen 
by the Americans of the Eighteenth Century" \n American Historical Association 
^Report, 1895, 455-466. 



liy] FROM THE CONVENTION TO 180I II7 

of cherishing kingly ambitions in keeping with his anti-republican 
stand on the French situation. These accusations were so per- 
sistent and irritating that Washington is said finally to have ex- 
claimed ''that he had rather be on his farm than to be made 
emperor of the world and yet that they were charging him with 
wanting to be a king/'^°'^ The imprudent behavior of the minis- 
ter Genet, in appealing from the President to the people, however, 
influenced many "French enthusiasts" to once more support 
President Washington. ^°° 

The administration's show of force against the so-called "Whis- 
key Insurrection" in western Pennsylvania, in the fall of 1794, 
renewed hostiHty to the President. As the FederaHsts expressed 
it "every measure of THE PRESIDENT'S" had been declared 
"the most abominable stretch of power."^*^^ What especially 
turned the opposition party against Washington was his signing 
of the Jay treaty with England,^°^ a treaty, according to the 
"Aurora," which would have annihilated "every republican 
principle in the government, had not the . . , spirited exertions 
of our patriotic representatives" prevented.^°^ Adet reported to 
the French Committee of Public Safety that Washington was 
ruled not by patriotism but ambition, and associated the Presi- 
dent with monarchism.^°^ The "Spurious Letters" of Washing- 
ton published as though authentic, were used at the time of the 
treaty agitation, to convince the public that Washington, even in 
the Revolution, had cherished the British monarchical govern- 
ment. ^^° The "x^urora," early in 1797, printed an article by "A 

i'«"The Anas," Jefferson, Writings (Ford ed.), I, 254. 

lo^Compare Bassett, Short History of the United States, 266-267. 

"^^Gazette of the United States, Sept. 6, 1794, quoting from the Columbian Centinel. 

^°Tor evidences of deep interest in European affairs see, for example, American 
Historical Association Report, 1896, 1,795-796; Ja^, Correspondence, IV, 198-203. 
See also above, n. 22. 

'^'^^Aurora, Sept. 29, 1797, p. 2. Compare J. Jones to Madison, early in 1795, 
Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, 2d. ser., XV, 147; also letters by 
Jones, Dec. 21, 1795, Feb. 17 and Apr. 26, 1796, ibid., 153, 155, 156; letters by 
Henry Tazewell, Jan. 24, Apr. 4, and Dec. 18, 1796, Tazewell, Twelve Letters, 
Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress. 

"^Sept. 2, 1795, American Historical Association Report, 1903, II, 116-111. 
See also letter from Adet to the French Minister of Foreign Relations, ibid., 915- 
916. 

^^°W. C. Ford, Spurious Utters of Washington, 



ii8 "monarchical" tendencies in the united states [ii8 

native of Pennsylvania" who said, *'I should have expected that 
we had not so soon arrived at the threshold of monarchy, that anv 
one would assert that the Chief Magistrate is not amenable to 
the people for his conduct." The article justified an "appeal 
to the people" which the French representative Adet had just 
made public."^ The issues of this paper, throughout the month, 
fairly bristled with insinuations of Washington's monarchism.^^^ 
Even after Washington's retirement to private life the French 
Consul General reported that the Federalists wished to make 
Washington king.^^^ 

During the first part of the administration of his successor 
Washington was exempt from monarchical charges. The "Au- 
rora" even praised him, indirectly, for having refused " the diadem 
offered by his veteran army."^^^ But Washington's appointment 
as head of the army raised against France in 1798 once more 
brought him into ill repute with the opposition party. In the 
campaign literature of 1800 Washington was dubbed the "mon- 
arch of Mount- Vernon, "^^^ and denounced for encouraging in 
America an imitation of royal birthday celebrations, royal levees, 
and royal speeches from the throne.^^^ 

The final verdict by the opposition party as to the monarchism 
of Washington can be best expressed in Jefferson's words, "I am 
convinced he is more deeply seated in the love and gratitude of 
the republicans, than in the Pharisaical homage of the federal 

i"Jan. 5, 1797, p. 2. 

"^Satirizing the praise accorded him for his revolutionary services, denouncing 
his support of "hereditary succession" in upholding a definite candidate for the 
next administration, challenging him to deny that he held the views set forth in 
the "Letters", charging hlm^ (indirectly) with having exploited his popularity, and 
scoffing at his "Farewell Address." See issues for Jan. 6, p. 2; Jan. 7, p. 2; Jan. 9, 
p. 3; Jan. 23, p. 3; Jan. 26, p. 3. 

"^After mentioning the agreement of England and the Federalists that the 
United States should declare war on France, Adet remarks, "Le but de toutes 
leurs menees est d'avoir un roi, mais I'un voudroit que ce fut un des fils du roi 
d'Angleterre, et I'autre Washington." Letombe to French Minister of Foreign 
Relations, June 18, 1191, American Historical Association Report, 1903,11, 1038. 

"*There is nothing to show that the Nicola propositions were known, as a knowl- 
edge of the " Newburgh Address" would sufficiently account for the above reference. 
See Aurora, Jan. 29, 1800, p. 2. 

"^J. T. Callender, Prospect before us, 18. 

"^T. Coxe, Strictures upon the letter imputed to Mr. Jefferson, addressed to Mr- 
Mazzei, 4-5. 



119] FROM THE CONVENTION TO 180I 1 19 

monarchists. For he was no monarchist from preference of his 
judgment. . . . He has often declared to me that he considered 
our new constitution as an experiment on the practicabiHty of re- 
publican government . . . that he was determined the experi- 
ment should have a fair trial, and would lose the last drop of his 
blood in support of it."^^^ 

Monarchical charges were brought with less restraint and more 
reason against Washington's successor as President; with less 
restraint because Adams did not enjoy the nation wide popularity 
of the military hero,"^ and with more reason because of certain 
of his own actions and utterances. Despite his early reputation 
as an ardent republican^^^ even before the adoption of the Con- 
stitution Adams had been suspected of monarchical preferences, 
due to his " Defence of the American Constitutions. "^^^ Adams 
had ** thrown together some hasty speculations upon . . 
government" under the stress of his alarm over "the commotions 
in New England" at the time of the Shays Rebellion.^^i 
There were those who suspected that "under ye mask of attacking 
Mr. Turgot" who had criticized the American form of govern- 
ment, Mr. Adams "notwithstanding now and then a saving 
clause" was "insidiously attempting ... to overturn" the 
American constitutions.^^^ In Washington's administration 
Adams had been satirized as "The Dangerous Vice."^23 fj^g g^j. 
vocacy of ceremonial in the new government was mercilessly 
ridiculed by some as of a monarchical character.124 j^ his advice 
to Washington on the matter, in May, 1789, Adams declared that 
the presidency "by its legal authority, defined in the constitu- 
tion, has no equal in the world, excepting those only which are 

"^Letter of Jan. 2, 1814, Jefferson, Writings (Ford ed.), IX, 449-450. 

"^Compare Adet to the French Minister of Foreign Relations, Dec. 15, 1796, 
American Historical Association Report, 1903, II, 978-979. 

"^See above, pages 23, and 34. 

^°See above, p. 87. 

^2iSee his own statement in a letter of Jan. 27, 1797, Works, IX, 551. 

^^he Reverend James Madison to his son, June 11, 1787, Massachusetts His* 
torical Society Proceedings, 2d ser., XVII, 465, 467. Compare letters between 
W. Nelson and W. Short, July 7 and Sept. 17, 1787; March 9, 13, 1788, Short 
Papers, Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress. 

^23See Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, XI, 18, for an example of 
such a reference. 

^Maclay, Journal, 10-14, 155, is probably the best example. 



120 ^^monarchical" tendencies in the united states [I20 

held by crowned heads; nor is the royal authority in all cases to 
be compared to it."^^^ In a series of letters to Roger Sherman, 
in July, 1789, Adams proved, to his own satisfaction, that the 
United States was actually a ** monarchical republic, or . . . 
a limited monarchy."^^^ Yet in 1790 he was cautioning a corres- 
pondent against the "fraudulent use of the words monarchy and 
republic y' and declaring himself **a mortal and irreconcilable 
enemy to monarchy. "^^^ His opposition to the French Revolu- 
tion especially as expressed in his ** Discourses on Davila'* was 
"urged as . . . proof, that he was an advocate for monarchy, 
and laboring to introduce a hereditary president in America/'^^s 
After the outbreak of the war between England and France Adam's 
eulogies of the British constitution were more distasteful than ever 
to those of his political opponents who "admired everything 
French and hated everything English." By 1796, M. Adet was 
reporting that the "Senators and John Adams at their head," 
were declaring that a monarchy was the only government suit- 
able to any people.^^^ At almost the same time Jefferson wrote 
his much discussed "Letter to Mazzei" in which he said that 
"an Anglican monarchical, & aristocratical party has sprung up 
whose avowed object is to draw over us the substance, as they 
have already done the forms, of the British government. The 
main body of our citizens . . . remain true to their republican 
principles . . . Against us are the Executive, the Judiciary, 
two out of three branches of the legislature . . ."^^° After the 
election of Adams, but before his inauguration, the issue was again 
discussed. Representative Robert G. Harper quoted from the 
"Defence" itself to prove Adams was no monarchist.^^^ In op- 

i25Adams, Works, VIII, 493. 

^mid., VI, 430. 

"^Letter to Benjamin Rush, Apr. 18, 1790, Adams, Works, IX, S66. Compare 
letter to JefFerson, July 29, 1791, ibid., VIII, 507. 

i28See "Discourses on Davila," ibid., VI, 225-403. Note also letters of 1792, in 
Madison, Writings (Hunt ed.), VI, 50, n., and Massachusetts Historical Society 
Proceedings, 2d ser., XV, 140. 

"^In the original French, this reads, ". . . le seul Gouvernement convenable, 
a tous les Peuples." Adet to the Minister of Foreign Relations, May 3, 1796, 
American Historical Association Report, 1903, II, 901. Compare letters of Sept. 24 
and Dec. 15, 1796, ibid., 949, 979. 

"ojefferson to P. Mazzei, April 24, 1796, Writings (Ford ed.), VII, 75-76. 

"^Letter to his constituents, Jan. 5, 1797, American Historical Association 
Report, 1913, II, 26. 



I2l] FROM THE CONVENTION TO 180I 121 

position quarters the suggestion was made that once in office as 
president he would perhaps be guided by the constitution and not 
attempt to put his monarchical theories into effect.^^^ 

In his inaugural address Adams did not overlook suspicions 
of his monarchical preferences for he was careful to state his 
"preference upon principle of a free republican government, 
formed upon long and serious reflection, after a diligent and im- 
partial inquiry after truth," and avowed "a conscientious de- 
termination" to support the Constitution "until it shall be altered 
by the judgments and the wishes of the people, expressed in the 
mode prescribed in it."^^^ Nevertheless, the charges against him 
were continued throughout the year.^^^ 

Party feeling was at an especially high pitch in 1798 even before 
the passage of the alien, sedition, and other acts of defence. 
The "Aurora," February twenty-seventh of that year, said that the 
President's dictatorial attitude towards Congress in respect to 
war or peace with France was leading "not merely to monarchy, 
but despotism. "^^^ In March an article appeared proving the 
"Presidential supremacy over a King of England," urging that 
the President's powers of patronage exceeded those of the latter 
dignitary. ^^^ The "Aurora " had concluded by the end of the month 
that the "royal faction" was about to get its war with France 
unless the people should rouse themselves soon.^^^ James Madison 
observed of the President's message that it was "only a further 
development to the public, of the violent passions, & heretical 
politics, which have been long privately known to govern him."^^^ 
The disclosure by Adams of the X. Y. Z. correspondence did not 
unite all persons to the administration. Henry Tazewell declared 
that the proofs were "innumerable and incontrovertible" that 
the "great political object of our own Govt." had "from the be- 
ginning been to assimilate it to that of Great Britain." He named 

i32See the Aurora, Feb. 3, 1797, p. 3; J. Jones to Madison, Jan. 29 and Feb. 5, 
1797, Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, 2d ser., XV, 159, 160. 

i33Adams, Works, IX, 109. 

i34See the Aurora, July 8, p. 2; July 14, p. 3; Aug. 14, p. 2; Sept. 27, p. 3; Sept. 
29, p. 2; also American Historical Association Report, 1903, II, 1038, 1090. See 
Appendix B, I, 1, "Cobbett." 

^^Aurora, Feb. 27, 1798, p. 2. 

^^Ibid., Mar. 5, 1798, p. 3. 

^^Ubid., Mar. 30, 1798, p. 3. 

"8Madison, Writings (Hunt ed.), VI, 312. (Letter to Jefferson, Apr. 2, 1798.) 



122 "monarchical" TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES 122] 

the ''laws, and public acts of the Government "as the proofs he had 
in mind. He declared that ''every measure of defence" against 
France was ''made the means of increasing the power of the Exe- 
cutive."^^^ Livingston's attack upon the Alien Bill as making the 
President a despot was published with the declaration that a code 
was being advocated "compared to which the ordeal is wise, & 
the trial by battle . . . merciful and just."^^'' "Richard Fru- 
gal" wrote to Mr. Bache,^^^ in July, "Immediately ... on the 
passing of the alien bill — Egad says I, I have found use for the 
bastile key and . . . for . . . the bastile itself . . . and the 
famous Lettres de Cachet."^^ Other accounts attacked the 
President or deplored the "system of terror that has been counte- 
nanced by our administration."^^ The most formal protest was 
voiced in the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 which declared that the 
spirit "manifested by the federal government to enlarge its powers 
by forced constructions" of the Constitution would inevitably 
result in transforming "the present republican system of the 
United States into an absolute or, at best, a mixed monarchy. "^^ 
In 1799 the "tyrannical and degrading effects"^*^ of the Sedition 
Act were harped upon, monarchical developments were described 
as inevitable among any people,^^^ and the ceremonious attendance 
of the President at the theatre deplored as meant " to familiarise 
us with the forms of monarchy. "^^^ The "Federalists" were de- 
fined as men who for the most part were beginning "to think a 
limited monarchy more tolerable than was heretofore supposed. "^'^^ 
A satirical article, really amusing from its very thoroughness, 
described the procedure at a Federalist Independence Day cele- 
bration as including an "ingenious, learned, and eloquent harrangue 
upon the blessings of monarchical forms of governments, and the 

i39]yiay 9, 1798, H. Tazewell, Twelve Letters, Manuscripts Division, Library of 
Congress. 

"o^«rortf,July2, 1798,p.2. 

^"Editor of the Aurora. 

i*2^«ror^, July 3, 1798, p. 2. 

^^Ibid., July 4, 1798, p. 2; and July 7, p. 3; July 12, p. 3; July 25, p. 2; Aug. 
27, p. 2. 

i^Elliot, Debates, IV, 528. 

^^Aurora, Feb. 21, 1799, p. 3. 

^^Ibid., Feb. 7, 1799, p. 2. 

^^Ubid., Feb. 22, 1799; p. 3. 

"8//^;W., July 4, 1799, p. 3. 



123] FROM THE CONVENTION TO 180I I23 

advantages of standing armies.'* The toast to "The Day" was 
accompanied by "3 laughs — a groan," while that to "The King of 
England" was followed by "16 cheers, 16 guns and 9 bumpers 
round. "^^^ English immigrants were declared to secretly favor the 
placing of a British prince on a throne in the United States, by 
means of the British army and its allies, once they had reduced 
the regicides of France.^^^ 

Even the President's break with the extremists of his own 
party, by making peace with France, did not ward off monarchical 
charges in the presidential election of 1800. An account of his 
alleged declaration that he had long been contending against the 
monarchists included a statement that at the same time he had 
said "that we shall never have liberty or happiness in this country, 
until our first Magistrate is hereditary. "^^^ An absurd tale was 
circulated that Adams was to "unite his family with the Royal 
House of Great Britain, the bridegroom to be King of America. "^^^ 
A more reasonable attack was on the score of the praise of monarchy 
in his "Defence, or rather attack of the American constitutions."^^ 
The author of "The Political Science of John Adams" writes of 
our second President, "Even for America he was a determined 
advocate of the elective principle only in the case of the house of 
representatives. In the other two branches he admitted the com- 
ing necessity of the hereditary principle, and recommended its 
adoption when the proper time should arrive. Had he lived till 
the advent of that time, or had the time arrived during his life, 
he would have advocated its actual adoption. ... It was, 
therefore, by no means an unjustifiable use of language for his 
opponents to class him as a monarchist." Adams himself left 
the question more in doubt when he remarked of an "hereditary 
nobility or Senate" that it was essential to an ''hereditary limited 
monarchy" but was "unattainable and impracticable" in America, 
and added, "I should scarcely be for it, if it were."^^^ On the 

^^^ Aurora, July 18, 1799, p. 2. 

^Hbid., Aug. 17, 1799, p. 3. 

"^"The Monarchism and the Foreign Devotion, of Persons in the Government 
of the Union, established on the testimony of Mr, Adams," Aurora, Sept. 26, 1800, 
p. 2. 

i52Cited by A. J. Beveridge, Life of John Marshall, I, 290-291. 

i53Callender, Prospect Before Us, 37. 

i^Letter to B. Rush, Apr. 18, 1790, Adams, PForks, IX, 566. 



124 '''monarchical^^ tendencies in the united states [124 

other hand, Mr. Walsh believes Adams*s adherence to the theory 
that the people were the "source of all government, stood him 
in good stead" with the people,^^^ which seems very probable. 
Thomas Jefferson, in 1818, wrote a plausible and in many respects 
a satisfying interpretation of Adams. "Mr. Adams had origi- 
nally been a republican. The glare of royalty and nobihty, during 
his mission to England, had made him believe their fascination a 
necessary ingredient in government, and Shay's rebellion, not 
sufficiently understood where he then was, seemed to prove that 
the absence of want and oppression was not a sufficient guarantee 
of order. His book on the American constitutions having made 
known his political bias, he was taken up by the monarchical 
federalists, in his absence, and on his return to the U. S. he was by 
them made to believe that the general disposition of our citizens 
was favorable to monarchy . . . Mr. Adams, I am sure, has 
. . . since thoroughly seen that his constituents were devoted 
to republican government, and whether his judgment is re-settled 
. . . or not, his is conformed as a good citizen to the will of 
the majority, and would now, I am persuaded, maintain it's 
repubHcan structure with the zeal and fidelity belonging to his 
character. "^^^ 

A study of the Federalist administrations would not be complete 
without some reference to Alexander Hamilton. Recognized by 
Jefferson as the "Colossus" of the FederaHst party, he seemed a 
dangerous man to the "republicans." Associated most especi- 
ally with the unpopular financial measures of the early part of 
Washington's administration he was thought, by his funding 
schemes, to be sowing the "seeds of hereditary power. '"'^^^ There 
is every reason to accept Hamilton's own statement of his stand, 
as found in a letter to Edward Carrington, early in 1792. He de- 
clared his real attachment "to the republican theory" and had 
"strong hopes of the success of that theory." At the same time 

i^C. M. Walsh, Political Science oj John Adams^ 283-284. For Jefferson's 
analysis of the monarchism of Adams see Jefferson, Writings (Ford ed.)? Ij 166, 
and X,332. For an explanation by Adams himself see letter to Benjamin Rush, 
April 18, 1790, Adams, Works, IX, 566. 

isepj-eface to "The Anas," Jefferson, Writings (Ford ed.), I, 166-167. See above, 
pages 22-23, for references to Adams's views in 1776. 

i^^Compare Benjamin Rush to Jeremy Belknap, June 21, 1792, mBelknap Papers, 
III {Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 6th ser., IV), 527; also Jefferson, 
Writings (Ford ed.), I, 165. 



125] FROM THE CONVENTION TO 180I I25 

he considered **its success as yet a problem." His whole political 
philosophy may be learned from the following sentence, "It is yet 
to be determined by experience whether it [republicanism] be 
consistent with that stability and order in government which are 
essential to public strength and private security and happiness. "^^^ 
His prominence in the suppression of the "Whiskey Insurrection" 
seemed to his opponents to prove him an advocate for "crushing 
down the spirit of republicanism by FORCE OF ARMS!"!^^ 
M. Adet, in 1795, professed to believe that Hamilton had been 
currying favor with the British [by means of his advocacy of the 
Jay Treaty] in order to further his own advancement by some 
monarchical arrangement.^^^ During Washington's administra- 
tion Hamilton played the role of a king's minister of the old days, 
in being the target for popular reproach in connection with govern- 
ment measures which aroused opposition. During Adams's term 
he continued, in a sense, to fill this role, for it was beheved, with 
some reason, that he "secretly ruled the cabinet of Mr. Adams."^^^ 
The proposals of Hamilton at the time of the Convention were 
made public early in 1798 under the head, "IMPORTANT 
DOCUMENT," and with an editorial note declaring that it 
"completely unmasks the political character of the man who has 
been most instrumental in entailing on the United States those 
pernicious systems under which they now groan. "^*^^' Hamilton 
was referred to quite commonly as "an avowed monarchist. "^^^ 
In a curious publication of 1799, professing to be a confidential 
letter from a monarchical Federalist, Hamilton was suggested as 
the founder of a royal dynasty for the United States. It was 
argued that an American monarchy might actually be instituted, 
despite the existing hostility to the idea, judging by the precedents 
of the acceptance of stamp duties, an excise tax, and, in Connecti- 
cut, an Episcopal bishop. "Let us look to the substance and 
adapt to it such terms as will be most palatable," ran the con- 
clusion.1^4 Hamilton's appointment as second in command (first 

issLetter of May 26, 1792, Hamilton, Works (Lodge ed.), VIII, 264. 

^^^Callender, Seven Letters^ 5. 

leoLetter of Dec. 2, 1795, American Historical Association Report, 1903, II, 795. 

i^^See, for example, the Aurora, Jan. 26, 1801, p. 2. 

162/^iV., Jan. 13, 1798, p. 3. 

i«For examples see ibid., July 21, 1798, p. 3; ibid., Feb. 5, 1801, p. 2. 

^^Ibid., Mar. 2, 1799, p. 2. 



126 ^'^monarchical" tendencies in the united states [126 

under Washington) in the army raised against France in 1798^^^ 
may have suggested this letter, for in it Hamilton is designated as 
"the great director of our plans, the real and not the ostensible 
commander of our military forces." 

Other " monarchists "^^^ could be listed and the charges against 
them reviewed, but it would add little of moment to the account 
presented. Certain conclusions are apparent from the charges 
against Washington, Adams, and Hamilton. Some of them may 
have been sincere expressions of a fear that the Executive would 
become so powerful as to be unseated or brought to terms by noth- 
ing short of revolution. But in most cases "monarchy" and 
"monarchical" were either abusive epithets, produced by the in- 
tense party feelings of the times, or were terms intended to call 
attention to alleged similarities between the federalists and real 
royahsts. 

In the century and more since the JefFersonian democrats " saved 
the country from monarchy" similar charges have been by one 
party or another. One occasionly hears them to-day in the 
Senate chamber^^^ or reads them in our periodicals.^^^ But in 
drawing conclusions it must not be forgotten that in the last years 
of the eighteenth century the experiment of republican govern- 
ment was in a much less advanced stage than at the present time 
and that the absurdity of erecting a monarchy in the United 
States had not yet been entirely established. 



^^On the act increasing the army and similar Federalist "war measures" of 1798 
see Bassett, The Federalist System^ 237. 

i^^Most notably Gouverneur Morris. 

"7See Congressional Record, 66th Congress, 2d Session, 3503, 4124-4129, 4683-4689. 

^^^For examples see "Autocracy For The U. S. Real Menace After War," by 
John Temple Graves, in the Chicago Examiner, May 27, 1917. See Mr. Root's 
speech as temporary chairman of the New York Republican Convention, New 
York Times, Feb. 20, 1920. The Chicago Tribune, in its leading editorial, 
August 6, 1921, furnishes an especially clear-cut example of the use of such charges 
as applied to state politics. 



CONCLUSION 

Thomas Hart Benton, in his "Thirty Years* View," records 
some words of Rufus King with the comment that they "ought to 
be remembered by future generations, to enable them to appreciate 
justly those founders of our government who were in favor of a 
stronger organization than was adopted'." They are as follows: 

"You young men [Benton and his generation] who have been 
born since the Revolution, look with horror upon the name of a 
King, and upon all propositions for a strong government. It was 
not so with us. We were born the subjects of a King, and were 
accustomed to subscribe ourselves 'His Majesty's most faithful 
subjects'; and we began the quarrel which ended in the Revolu- 
tion, not against the King, but against his parliament."^ 
y^ This survey of American ideas on government from 1776 to 
1801 has presented evidences of the attitude described by Rufus 
King. The survival of monarchical predilections appeared suffi- 
ciently persistent to lead men to give serious consideration to 
plans, or rumors of plans, of a monarchical nature. Yet if certain 
men of more than average ability and reputation considered such 
plans desirable and feasible they hesitated to publish them to the 
people. They welcomed the Constitution of 1787 with a show of 
relief which convinces one that if they had desired a monarchical 
government it was not as an end in itself but as a means of assur- 
ing security for "life, liberty and property." 

The charges of monarchical purposes brought against the Feder- 
alist administrations were for the most part unjustified. Yet they 
can be understood as manifestations of sincere apprehension on 
the part of men not yet accustomed to the efficient operations of a 
strong central government. Party differences arising from the 
domestic situation were accentuated by the division of opinion 

^T. H. Benton, Thirty Years' View, I, 58. Compare and contrast Jefferson's 
remark, March IS, 1789, quoted above, 56, and footnote on same page. 

127 



128 ^^MONARCHICAL^^ TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES [128 

on contemporary affairs in Europe. The war between Great 
Britain and France loomed large in the eyes of Americans as a 
struggle between monarchy and democracy, or, in the terms of the 
day, between tyranny and anarchy. The outcome was an ab- 
sence of mutual understanding and cooperation between parties 
in America, which resulted, in turn, in the exploitation of mon- 
archical charges. 

The caution and secrecy maintained in regard to monarchical 
plans by the persons most favorably inclined towards them, con- 
trasted with the loud-voiced accusations of their political oppon- 
ents, indicate the existence of popular aversion to monarchy in 
the period studied. 

The main results of the study may be concisely summarized 
as follows: 

I. There is reason to believe that several plans of monarchical 
character received serious consideration in the United States be- 
tween 1776 and 1787. 

II. The character of the men associated with them entitles 
these plans to considerable attention. 

III. The existence of monarchical purposes in the Constitu- 
tional Convention is largely a matter of definition. 

IV.The exigencies of practical politics after 1787 account for 
much but not all of the current suspicion regarding monarchical 
tendencies from 1787 to 1801. 

V. Nearly all of the evidence observed reinforces the belief that 
the people of the United States were essentially an ti monarchical 
in the period studied. 



APPENDIX A 

Colonel Nicola's Apologies to General Washington for having 
made to him certain Monarchical Propositions. 

I 

• Fishkill 23 May 1782 

sr 

I am this moment honoured with yours and am extremely un- 
happy that the liberty I have taken should be so highly disagree- 
able to your Excellency, tho I have met with a many severe mis- 
fortunes nothing has ever affected me so much as your reproof. 
I flatter myself no man is more desirous to be governed by the 
dictates of true religion and honour, & since I have erred I en- 
treat you will attribute it more to weakness of judgment than 
corruptness of heart. No man has entered into the present dis- 
pute with more zeal, from a full conviction of the justness of it, 
& I look on every person who endeavours to disturb the repose of 
his country as a villain, if individuals disapprove of any thing in 
the form of government they live under they have no other choice 
but a proper submission or to retire. The scheme I mentioned 
did not appear to me in a light any way injurious to my country, 
rather likely to prove beneficial, but since I find your sentiment so 
different from mine I shall consider myself as having been under a 
strong delusion, & beg leave to assure you it shall be my future 
study to combate, as far as my abilities reach, every gleam of 
discontent. Excuse the confusion of this occasion by the dis- 
traction of my mind & permit me to subscribe myself with due respect 

Your Excellenies 

Most obed^ Servant 

Lewis Nicola Col. Inv. 



129 



130 MONARCHICAL TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES [13O 

II 

Fishkill 24 May 1782 

Greatly oppressed in mind & distressed at having been the means 
of giving your Excellency one moments uneasiness, I find myself 
under the necessity of relying on your goodness to pardon my 
further troubling you by endeavouring, if possible, to remove every 
unfavourable impression that lies in your breast to my prejudice. 
Alway anxious to stand fair in the opinion of good men the idea 
of your thinking me capable of acting or abetting any villainy 
must make me very unhappy. 

I solemnly assure your Excellency I have neither been the 
broacher, or in any shape the encourager of the design not to sepe- 
rate at the peace 'till all grievances are redressed, but have often 
heard it mentioned either directly or by hints. 

From sundry resolves of Congress favourable to the army, but 
which that Hon!^ Body has not been able to execute, persons who 
only see what swims on the surface have laid the blame at their 
door & therefore lost all confidence in promises, how far this bad 
impression may affect the larger part of the army I cannot say, but 
should it operate considerably at the conclusion of the war, it may 
be expected that all obHgations shall be immediately discharged, 
the possibility of which I much doubt, therefore I took the liberty 
of mentioning what I thought would be a compromise, bidding 
fair to be satisfactory to one side and not disadvantageous to the 
other. 

Deprived by misfortunes of that patrimony I was born to, and 
with a numerous family, depending entirely upon my military ap- 
pointments, when these have failed the tender feelings of a husband 
and father, seeing his family often destitute of the common neces- 
saries of life, have pierced my soul, these feelings often repeated 
& fraught with anxiety for the future may have sowered my mind 
& warped my judgment, but in the most sacred manner I protest 
that had I influence & abihties equal to the task the idea of occa- 
sioning any commotions in a country I lived in would be daggers 
in my breast, and I shou'd think myself accountable at the grand 
tribunal for all the mischiefs that might ensue, was it my fate to 
live under a government I thought insupportable I would look on 
retiring to some other as the only justifiable means I could pursue. 



131] NICOLA LETTERS Ijl 

As to my opinion on different forms of government, if it be 
erroneous, I assure you the fault is owing to a defect in judgment 
not a willful shutting my eyes to the light of reason. 

However wrong the sentiments I have disclosed to your Ex- 
cellency may be, they cannot have done any mischief, as they have 
always remained locked up in my breast. 

My mind was so disturbed at the perusal of your Excellencies 
letter that I do not know what answer I returned, if there was 
any thing improper in it I must trust to your humanity for pardon 
& request you will believe me with unfeigned respect 

s: 

Your Excellencies mostobed^ Servant 
Lewis Nicola Col Inv. 

Ill 

Fishkill 28 Febr^ 1782 ["Ought to 
be 28th May 1782" according to Wash- 
ington's endorsement] 
S^ 

Since I was honoured with your Excellencies Letter of the 22d 
Inst. I have assiduously endeavoured to recollect, not Only each 
paragraph, but also every expression of that ill fated representa- 
tion which has been the occasion of so much trouble to you & 
anxiety to me, in order to find out what could occasion my inten- 
tions being so greatly misapprehended, and cannot attribute it to 
any thing but an inability to express my sentiments with sufficient 
pespicuity, and its being introduced by complaints that apparently 
bear hard on & censure the supreme authority of our Union, which 
so prejudiced your mind as to prevent attention to my request, 
that your Excellf-' would judge of the whole together & not by 
detached parts. From this consideration I am induced to trespass 
further on your goodness in hopes of putting the-m in a clearer 
point of view. 

Far has it been from my thoughts to suppose that Congress 
ever entered into an engagement, or made a promise they did not 
intend to fullfil, but as they were not always executed, I endeav- 
oured to find out the true cause, and by considering such cir- 
cumstances as have come to my knowledge concluded they were 
prevented, in some cases by the untoward circumstances of the 



132 *^^monarchical'^ tendencies in the united states [132 

times, and in others, by the contracted [?] principles of some with- 
out whose assistance that Hon^ Body cannot perform them. I 
could mention several things in support of this opinion but shall 
only trouble your Excellency with one report I have heard since 
my return here, which is that some of the eastern States refused to 
comply with the request of Congress, to be allowed a duty of 5 
per cent on imported goods, from the consideration that if it had 
such a fund it would be enabled to pay the half pay to the officers 
already reformed. How true this is is, is impossible for me to 
determine, but supposing it otherwise, if believed it may operate as 
much as if it were gospel. 

Tho I do not pretend to a larger portion of understanding than 
the generallity of mankind, yet I flatter myself I am neither an 
idiot or crazed, one or the other of which must have been the case 
had I singled out your Excellency for the purpose of countenanc- 
ing mutiny or treason, & as a fit person to unbosom myself pre- 
ferably to every other individual within my reach; this I hope 
will be sufficient to clear me from every suspicion of harbouring 
sinister designs, and that however inaptly I may have expressed 
myself, my intention was not to promote but, as far as in me lay, 
prevent designs that may some time or other be carried into execu- 
tion & occasion great mischief. 

My apprehensions were founded on the following considera- 
tions. That numbers of our privates are dissatisfied & ready to 
break out, were they not prevented by the virtue of their officers, 
were any number of the latter, at the peace, to consider them- 
selves in danger of being deprived of the fruits of their toils & 
hazards; of the reward of their services, on which several may 
depend for the future support of themselves & families, & join with 
the men the consequence may be fatal; Impressed by these ideas 
I know not to what man or body of men I could better address 
myself than to your Excellency, as I am persuaded none is more 
enabledj by influence on the army, to counter act any bad designs. 
No person can be more interested in Congress's fulfilling all her 
engagements than I am, yet I flatter myself that will be done 
voluntarily or obtained by justifiable m.eans. 

Tho the above was a main-consideration I must own it was not 
the only one, but that I was prompted to the step I took by 
another inducement. The different forms of gove- under which 



133] NICOLA LETTERS I33 

men live, or have lived, have frequently employed my most serious 
thoughts and the conclusion that all, the Jewish Theocracy ex- 
cepted, have many defects accompanying their good qualities, 
& that if the latter could be culled & formed into one system it 
would bid fair to be the most perfect human art could device. 
When we assumed independence, & each state formed a plan of 
government for itself I was astonished that none of the thirteen 
had adopted the english Constitution purged of its defects till I 
considered that reformers seldom hit the true point of rest, but 
never stop 'till they reach, one diametrically opposite to that they 
set out from without considering that extremes may be equally 
vicious. Montesquieu observes that warm climates are best 
adapted to subjection & cold ones to freedom, but his sagacity 
could not foresee that the inhabitants of the sultry cHmate of 
Georgia as well as those of the cold region of the Province of Main 
would have both concurred in rejecting every shaddow of Mon- 
archy. 

A man of 60 years of age may reasonably expect that a young 
republican government will not, in his time, be so vitiated as to 
render living under it intolerable, therefore, had I none to regard but 
myself, I should endeavour to glide through the dregs of life with 
tranquillity, but as my many children give me a prospect of a 
numerous issue I wish to leave them with the fairest prospect of 
political felicity possible, therefore as soon as Congress & some 
States promised to reward their troops with lands I could not help 
forming the pleasing hopes they might be induced to allot them 
contiguous to each, with liberty of forming a distinct State under 
such form of government as those that chose to emigrate might 
prefer. Satsiiied that no person is more likely, by interest with 
Congress & influence with the army, to promote such a scheme, 
if approved of, than your Excellency, I took the liberty fully to 
describe my thoughts to you, & to you allone, possibly induced by 
the pleasing hopes of seeing a favorite project realised, to go too 
far. 

In such a project as mine the utmost attention should [be] 
had to every stone of the foundation, which should not be laid 
without mature deliberation, & that under the guidance of a 
person who, to considerable abilities can add such a rectitude of 
heart as to prefer the publick weal to all the dazling prospects of 
prerogative 



134 MONARCHICAL TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES [134 

I fear words cannot be sufficient to appologise for the great 
liberty I have taken therefore shall not trespas any farther on 
your lenity than to assure you that I am with great respect 

Si 

Your Excellencies 

Most obed^ Servant, 

Lewis Nicola Col. Inv. 



APPENDIX B 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

I. Source Material 
1. Documents and Contemporary Writings 

John Adams, Works. Edited by C. F.' Adams. 9 vols. Boston, 
1850-1856. T\^t Works form volumes II-X of C. F. Adams's 
Life and Works of John Adams. In some respects the most 
valuable collection used, because of the writer's importance 
throughout the period, and because of the frankness with 
which he reveals his reaction to the political changes of his time. 

John Quincy Adams, Memoirs. Edited by C. F. Adams. 12 vols. 
Philadelphia, 1874-1877. Of importance to the present study 
rather for what it omits than what it includes. 

Samuel Adams, Writings. Edited by H. A. Gushing. 4 vols. 
New York, 1904-1908. Especially helpful for the early period, 
v/hen it reveals, in part, the colonial attitude towards the 
British monarchical government. 

American Antiquarian Society Proceedings, new series, XV. Wor- 
cester, 1904. Includes material on the Shays Rebellion. 

American Archives. Compiled under authority of Congress by 
Peter Force. 9 vols. Washington, 1837-1853. Contains ■ a 
wealth of material (legislative acts, speeches, et cetera for 
1774-1776) which is difficult of access because awkwardly ar- 
ranged. 

American Historical Review. New York, 1895 — . Includes source 
m.aterial such as James Wilkinson's oath of allegiance to Spain 
and correspondence between Ira Allen and British officials. 

Annals of the Congress oj the United States (1789-1824). 42 vols. 
Washington, 1834-1856. 

Belknap Papers {Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 
5th ser., II, III; 6th ser., IV). Boston,1877 and 1891. Cover 

135 



136 ^^monarchical" tendencies in the united states [136 

years 1766-1798, but the greater number of letters were written 
after 1780. The Belknap-Hazard group are of special interest 
as revealing the interests of conservatives of the years 1779- 
1788. 

Phineas Bond, Letters {American Historical Association Report^ 
1896, I, 513-659). Edited by J. Franklin Jameson. British 
consular reports for 1787-1789. Betrays no undue interest in 
American political arrangements. 

Marquis de Bouillc, Souvenirs and Fragments. (Published as 
part of a series by **La Societe d'Histoire Contemporaine.") 
Paris, 1906-1911. The author was a personal friend of Prince 
Henry of Prussia, and described him at some length. 

Bowdoin and Temple Papers {Massachusetts Historical Society 
Collections, 7th ser., VI). Boston, 1907. Covers the years 
1783-1809. Includes a letter to Gorham in 1786. 

Aedanus Burke, Considerations on the Society of Cincinnati. 
Hartford [1783?] (There was also a Philadelphia edition, 1783.) 
A pamphlet which proved effective in arousing hostihty to the 
society as creating "a race of hereditary patricians, or nobihty." 

J. T. Callender, The Prospect Before Us. Richmond, 1800. 
A violent campaign pamphlet, based in part on the writer's 
observations, as a visitor, in the house of representatives "for 
the greater part of five sessions." Asserts the Federalists are 
"monarchists." 

J. T. Callender, (reputed author). Seven Letters to Alexander 
Hamilton, King 0/ the Feds. New York, 1802. Appears sep- 
arately, also in Duane's Pamphlets, New York, 1814. Thought 
by W. C. Ford to be wrongly accredited to J. T. Callendar, 
since he had left the Anti-Federalist ranks by 1802. Ridicules 
Hamilton for his attack on Adams. Calls Hamilton the 
"greatest Machiavel in America," and denounces the Federal- 
ists generally. 

Reports on Canadian Archives, 1889-1890. By Douglas Brymner, 
Archivist. Ottawa, 1890, 1891. Very valuable, especially for 
its presentation of contemporary evidence on Canadian-Ameri- 
can relations. 

Marquis de Chastellux, Travels in North America in 1780, 1781, 
and 1782. Translated from the French by an English gentleman, 
who resided in America at that period. With notes by the trans- 
lator. 2 vols. London, 1787. By far the best commentary on 



137] BIBLIOGRAPHY 137 

American political developments of any of the travellers* ac- 
counts of the times, so far as the present writer has found. The 
Marquis was impressed with the devotion of the people to Washing- 
ton, by the reaction against English forms of government, 
et cetera. 

William Cobbett, Political Works, Edited by J. M. and J. P. 
Cobbett. 6 vols. London, preface dated 1835. As a vigorous 
exponent of the British monarchy and at the same time a sup- 
porter of the American Federalist party Cobbett (** Peter 
Porcupine") seemed to the Anti-Federalists a living example 
of the union of Federalism and monarchism. 

Congressional Record^ Containing the Proceedings and Debates. 
Washington, 1873 to date. Used for February and March, 
1920. 

Journals of the Continental Congress. Edited by W. C. 
Ford and Gaillard Hunt. 23 vols, to date. Washington, 
1904—. Madison's ** Notes of Debates" appear for 1782- 
1783. The volumes for 1783 are in preparation. 

Tench Coxe , An Examination of the Constitution for the United 
States of America of America, Submitted to the People by the 
General Convention, at Philadelphia, the 1 7th. Bay of September, 
1787, and Since Adopted and Ratified by the Conventions of Eleven 
States, Chosen for the Purpose of Considering It, Being all that 
have yet Decided on the Subject. Philadelphia, 1788. Points out 
the ''safety of the people, from the restraints imposed on the 
President" and from other excellent features of the Constitution. 

Tench Coxe, Strictures upon the Letter imputed to Mr. Jefferson 
addressed to Mr. Mazzei. 1800. His main object is to prove 
that the sentiments and observations of the letter are correct. 

Manasseh Cutler, Life, Journals, and Correspondence. Edited by 
W. P. and J. P. Cutler. 2 vols. Cincinnati, 1888. 

Silas Deane, Papers {New York Historical Society Collections, 
XIX-XXIII). Edited by Charles Isham, New York, 1887- 
1891. The papers cover the years 1774-1790. 

John Dickinson, Writings {Memoirs of the Historical Society 
of Pennsylvania, XIV). Edited by P. L. Ford. Philadelphia, 
1895. Valuable for the early part of the period when Dickin- 
son's writings were a power throughout the country. 

Documents Relating to New England Federalism, 1800-1815. Edi- 
ted by Henry Adams. Boston, 1877. Of interest in the 



138 ^'monarchical'' tendencies in the united states [138 

present study as depicting the political aftermath of the ** re- 
publican triumph." 

J. Elliot, compiler, Debates in the Several State Conventions, on 
the Adoption of the Federal Constitution ... 5 vols. Phila- 
delphia and Washington, 1866. 

Essex Institute Historical Collections, XXV. Salem, 1899. 

Max Farrand, editor. Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. 
. . . 3 vols. New Haven, 1911. Contains the official jour- 
nal, the quasi-official records by Madison, and the notes of 
certain other delegates, together with much other data, such as 
statements on the Convention by various members. An ex- 
cellent index is a feature of the work. 

The Federalist, a Commentary on the Constitution . . . by Alex- 
ander Haynilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Edited by 
P. L. Ford. New York, copyrighted 1898. 

Benjamin Franklin, Writings. Edited by A. H. Smyth. 10 
vols. New York, 1905-1907. 

Albert Gallatin, Writings. Edited by Henry Adam^s. 3 vols. 

Philadelphia, 1879. Worthy of note for their very indifference 
to the "monarchical" charges which so many men of Galla- 
tin's party were bringing against the Federalists. 

Alexander Hamilton, Works. Edited by J. C. Hamilton. 7 
vols. New York, 1850-1851. 

Alexander Hamilton, Works. Edited by H. C. Lodge. 9 
vols. New York, 1885-1886. A more complete edition than 
that by J. C. Hamilton. The correspondence is especially 
valuable to the present study. 

Alexander Hamilton, Works. Federal edition. Edited by 
H. C. Lodge. 12 vols. New York and London, 1904. 

Patrick Henry, Life, Correspondence and Speeches. Edited by 
W. W. Henry. 3 vols. New York, 1891. Represents the 
extreme antimonarchical attitude in the early part of the period. 

C. HipPEAU, Le Gouvernement de Nor?nandie au XVIP et XVIIP 
Siecle, IIL Caen, 1864. Includes letters from America by St. 
John de Crevecoeur. 

William Hull, An Oration Delivered to the Society of the Cincin- 
nati in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, July 4, 1788. Boston, 
1788. Reviews the political situation from the eve of the 
Revolution to midsummer 1788. 



139] BIBLIOGRAPHY I39 

The Life and Times of David Hujnphreys^ by F. L. Humphreys. 
2 vols. New York and London, 1917. Worthy of note as 
source material because of the large amount of correspondence 
included. 

Gaillard Hunt And James Brown Scott, editors, The Debates in 
the Federal Convention of 1787 Which Framed the Constitution of 
the United States of America^ Reported by James Madison a Dele- 
gate from the State of Virginia. International edition. New 
York (Oxford University Press), 1920. This edition of the 
Debates is in some respects an improvement upon that by 
Farrand but, on the whole, less helpful to the present study. 
The more important quotations above have been checked with 
the newer edition but only minor differences have been found. 

John Jay, Correspondence and Public Papers. Edited by H. P. 
Johnston. 4 vols. New York, 1890-1893. Especially sug- 
gestive of the reaction of conservative persons to the disorders 
of 1786. 

Thomas Jefferson, Writings. Edited by H. A. Washington. 
9 vols. Washington, 1853-1854. Sometimes called "Con- 
gress Edition." 

Thomas Jefferson, Writings. Edited by P. L. Ford. 10 vols. 
New York, 1892-1899. 

Journal, Acts and Proceedings, of the Convention 

Which Formed the Constitution of the United States. Published 
in conformity to a Resolution of Congress. Boston, 1819. 

The Life of John Kalb, by Friedrick Kapp. English translation. 
New York, 1870. Contains some valuable letters and reports. 

The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King. Edited by C. R. 
King. 6 vols. New York,' 1894-1900. Includes many let- 
ters illustrating the pohtical views of this important Federalist. 

The Life and Correspondence of Henry Knox, by F. S. Drake 
Boston, 1873. Contains a number of letters helpful to the 
present study. 

Charles Lee, Papers {New York Historical Society Collections, 
IV-VII). New York, 1871-1874. Vivid but very partisan com- 
mentaries on men and issues of the day. 

Richard Henry Lee, Letters. Edited by J. C. Ballagh. 2 vols. 
New York, 1911-1914. Covers nearly the entire period and 
somewhat balances the impressions one gets from Federalist 
writings. 



140 %IONARCHICAL^^ TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES [14O 

William Macdonald, editor, Select Charters and Other 'Documents 
Illustrative of American History^ 1606-1775. New York, 1910. 

William Maclay, Journal. Edited by E. S. Maclay. New 
York, 1890. An intimate account of the organization of the 
government under the present Constitution, full of gibes at 
"monarchical tendencies." 

James Madison, Papers. Edited by H. D. Gilpin. 3 vols. 
Washington, 1840. 

James Madison, Writings. Edited by Gaillard Hunt. 9 vols. 
New York, 1900-1910. 

The Magazine of History^ XXIII. New York and Poughkeepsie, 
1916. Prints a letter by J. M. Varnum. 

Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings. 52 vols. Boston and 
Cambridge, 1794-1919. Include much scattered source ma- 
terial, such as extracts from correspondence and journals. 
(Items under the Collections of the Society form entire volumes 
and are listed under their special titles.) 

G. R. MiNOT, History of the Insurrections in Massachusetts. Bos- 
ton, 1788 and 1810. An historical account by a Massachusetts 
man of the time. Breathes a spirit of reconciliation. 

Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections, XXIV, Lansing, 
1895. Prints interesting contemporary comments by Canad- 
ians on political tendencies in the United States. 

James Monroe, Writings. Edited by S. M. Hamilton. 7 vols. 
New York, 1898-1903. Contain few references to '^mon- 
archists." 

H. NiLES, editor, Principles and Acts of the Revolution. Baltimore, 
1822. An old but rather useful collection of sources. 

Records of the Ohio Company, edited by A. B. Hulbert; see below, 
11,2. 

Thomas Paine, Writings. Edited by M. D. Conway. 4 vols. 
New York, 1894-1896. The best collection of Paine's works. 

Thomas Pownall, The Administration of the British Colonies, 5th 
edition. 2 vols. London, 1774. A thoughtful work by a 
former colonial governor. Desires imperial reorganization to 
restore harmony. 

John Rowe, Diary {Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, 
2d ser., X, 11-108). An interesting account of events in Massa- 
chusetts, 1764-1779, by a conservative Boston merchant. 



141] BIBLIOGRAPHY I4I 

Arthur St. Clair, Papers. Edited by W. H. Smith. 2 vols. 
Cincinnati, 1882. Of importance as revealing the poHtical 
ideas of a prominent revolutionary general and statesman. 

James Brown Scott, co-editor. The Debates in the Federal Conven- 
tion . . . Reported by James Madison . . . Listed above 
under Gaiilard Hunt. 

Life and Correspondence of Samuel Seabury. By E. E. Beardsley. 
Boston, 1881. Less important to a political than a religious 
study. 

Spurious Letters of Washington. Edited by W. C. Ford. Brooklyn, 
1889. These "Letters" were dated as written in the earlier 
months of the Revolution, and were published to injure Wash- 
ington at the time of the Jay treaty agitation. They represented 
him as never really renouncing loyalty to the royal government. 

B. F. Stevens, Facsimiles of Manuscripts in European Archives 
relating to America, 1772-1783. 24 portfolios. 1889-1895, 
index, 1898. Of interest in the present connection for certain 
papers bearing on the De Broghe ambitions. 

Ezra Stiles, Literary Diary. Edited by F. B. Dexter. 3 vols. 
New York, 1901. Contains many comments on public affairs. 

J. G. Swift, Memoirs, 1890. Swift was a confidential friend of 
President Monroe and recorded the latter's reference to Na- 
thaniel Gorham's supposed letter to Prince Henry. 

Dr. Thacher, *S^r;;2o;2 on the Death of Nathaniel Gorham. [Boston], 
1796. Contains some references to Gorham's life and charac- 
ter. 

Vermont Historical Society Collections. 2 vols. Montpeher, 1870, 
1871. Contains valuable source material on the negotiations 
between Vermont and Canada. 

Warren-Adams Letters, 1743-1777 {Massachusetts Historical 
Society Collections, LXXII). Boston, 1917. Some interesting 
letters by John Adams, written in confidential vein, are a fea- 
ture of the collection. 

George Washington, Writings. Edited by J. Sparks. 12 
vols. Boston, 1837. 

George W^ashington, Writings. Edited by W. C. Ford. 14 
vols. New York, 1889. 

Dr. Welsh, Eulogy to the Memory of Nathaniel Gorham. Boston, 
1796. The most complete account of Gorham that appears to 
exist. . 



142 ^^monarchical" tendencies in the united states [142 

Francis Wharton, The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence 
oj the United States. 6 vols. Washington, 1889. 

2. Manuscripts 

(With one exception, that of the Crevecoeur Letter of July 22, 

1787, the manuscripts listed are in the Manuscripts Division of 

the Library of Congress.) 

American Stamp Act Collection. Of heterogeneous character, in- 
cluding such items as an anonymous diary for 1765-1770 
(apparently by Ebenezer Hazard) and contemporary prints 
caricaturing the ministry. 

William Armstrong, Papers^ 1762-1814. Transcripts. For 
the most part of little or no value for the present study, but 
cited in one case. 

Continental Congress, Papers, Letter Books 0} the Presidents, May 
28, 1781-Aug. 9, 1787. 1 vol. The letters of Nathaniel Gor- 
ham as President (as well as those of John Hancock) are con- 
spicuous by their absence. 

Hector St. Jean de Crevecoeur, Letter to William Short, July 
22, 1787. Original in the Library of the Historical Society of 
Pennsylvania. Described above, in chapter iv. 

Nathan Dane, Letters. Twenty in number, written between 
1785 and 1814, some by Dane but more to him. Extremely in- 
teresting for their failure to harmonize with the conception that 
the years 1785-1787 were so obviously critical as to drive men 
in despair to frame a new constitution. They deserve special 
study and interpretation. 

Benjamin Franklin, Miscellaneous Papers. Contain some cor- 
respondence with Nathaniel Gorham. 

James Madison, Notes on Debates in the Continental Congress, 
1782-1783, 1787. Sixteen little volumes that give the reader 
a more vivid picture of the disputes and difficulties of the Con- 
tinental Congress than otherwise available. (They have been 
published in various works.) They furnish one of the few 
sources for an understanding of Nathaniel Gorham. 

James Madison, Papers, 105 vols. Only special items, reached 
through the Calendar, were examined by the present writer. 

James Monroe, Papers, 22 vols. Examined as in case of Madi- 
son Papers. 



143] BIBLIOGRAPHY I43 

Lewis Nicola, Propositions to Washington and Apologies. See 

above, Chapter iii, and Appendix A. 
A Collection of Letters Written to and by William Plumer and 

Transcribed for his Amusement and Instruction. Covers the 

years 1781-1804. Especially interesting as showing some of 

the origins of his later Federalist sympathies. 
Thomas Rodney, Diary. Contains character sketches of his 

colleagues in Congress in 1781, and later comments on public 

events after his retirement to private life. The writer was a 

brother to Caesar Rodney. The Diary betrays an unbalanced 

mental state. 
William Short, Papers. A remarkable collection of 52 volumes, 

for 1778-1849, 31 of which are within the period of the present 

study. Short, for many years in Europe, both in private and 

official capacity, corresponded with a variety of persons, from 

Thomas Paine to Alexander Hamilton, and on both European 

and American affairs. 
Stamp Act Congress Collection. Similar to American Stamp Act 

Collection. 
Ezra Stiles, Literary Diary., 1770-1790. Force Transcripts. 

Contains some passages omitted from the printed edition. 
Henry Tazewell, Twelve Letters^ 1796-1798. Tazewell was a 

member of Congress from Virginia. His letters are long and 

full of comments on public affairs. 
George Washington, Papers^ especially vols. 198 and 200. 

Examined especially for correspondence with Nicola and Var- 

num. 

3. Newspapers 

The Newport Mercury; or The Weekly Advertiser. Newport (R. I.), 
1758— Photographic facsimiles for 1766-1776 used for the pres- 
ent study. By its exchange articles from other papers it affords 
a broader view than its place of publication may suggest. It is, 
in a way, a repertory of sources, for it brings together a large 
number of addresses, petitions, resolutions, and the like. More 
important, it presents them to us in the form and context in 
which they were presented to the reading public of 1766-1776. 

Newspaper Extracts^ 1776-1780; New Jersey Archives (or. Docu- 
ments Relating to the Revolutionary History of the State of New 
Jersey), 2d ser. I-IV. Paterson and Trenton, 1901-1914. Re- 



144 ^^MONARCHICAL^^ TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES [144 

late particularly to New Jersey but appear generally represent- 
ative of the period. Little assistance to the present study due 
to confusion of monarchical with war issues. 

Pennsylvania Packet and the General Advertiser^ 1771-1790 (?); 
w., s. w., t. w., and 1784— daily.Philadelphia. Numbers for 1786 
1788 examined. More news items and less controversial matter 
than the Mercury^ or, later, the Aurora. Frankly interested 
in events in royal circles abroad. Expressed great admiration 
for Washington, on the eve of the Federal Convention. Sup- 
ported the movement for an improved constitution. 

Gazette of the United States and Daily Advertiser^ 1794-1795. 
Philadelphia. Existed earlier and later under similar names. 
Founded in New York. John Fenno the editor. A "Hamil- 
tonian" organ. Numbers for 1794 examined. Revealed sup- 
port of strong and centralized government but no monarch- 
ical tendencies. 

Aurora and General Advertiser (titles varied but these the chief 
ones), 1792 (?)-1826 (.?); d. Philadelphia. Examined for 
1797-1801. The most prominent newspaper of its time in the 
United States. Violently anti-administration, anti-British, 
and pro-French. Whatever the basis of its attacks the form in 
which they were made was frequently disgraceful. Very valu- 
able for purposes for the present study. 

New York Times^ 1851-; d. New York. A single issue cited. 

II. Secondary Material 

1. General y^orks 

a. Bibliographical Aids 

Calendar of the Papers of Benjamin Franklin in the Library of the 
American Philosophical Society, Edited by I. M. Hays. 5 
vols. Philadelphia, 1908. (See below. List of the . . . Frank- 
lin Papers.) 

Calendar of the Correspondence of James Madison {Bureau of 
Rolls and Library of the Department of State, no. 4). Washing- 
ton, March, 1894. 

Calendar of Monroe Papers. (See above, James Monroe, Papers). 

Calendar of Washington Manuscripts in the Library of Congress. 
Prepared by Herbert Friedenwald. Washington, 1901. 



145] BIBLIOGRAPHY 145 

Calendar of the Correspondence of George Washington with the Con- 
tinental Congress, Prepared by J. C. Fitzpatrick. Washing- 
ton, 1906. 

Calendar of the Correspondence of George Washington Commander in 
Chief of the Continental Army with the Officers. Prepared by 
J. C. Fitzpatrick. 4 vols. Washington, 1915. 

E. Channing, A. B. Hart, and F. J. Turner, editors. Guide to the 
Study and Reading of American History. Boston and London, 
1914. 

Check List of American Newspapers in the Library of Congress. 
Prepared by A. B. Slauson, Washington, 1901. 

Check List of Personal Papers in Historical-Societies . . . and other 
Learned Institutions in the United States. Compiled by J. C. 
Fitzpatrick. Washington, 1918. 

Handbook of Manuscripts in the Library of Congress. Compiled 
by Gaillard Hunt and others. Washington, 1918. 

J. N. Larned, editor. The Literature of American History. Bos- 
ton, 1902. 

List of the Benjamin Franklin Papers in the Library of Congress. 
Edited by W. C. Ford. Washington, 1905. 

James Monroe Papers, Listed in Chronological Order from the 
. . . Manuscripts in the Library of Congress. Compiled by 
W. C. Ford. Washington, 1904. 

b. Encyclopedic Aids 

American Historical Association, Index to Papers and Annual Re- 
ports, 1884-1914 {American Historical Association Reports, 
1914, II). Compiled by D. M. Matteson. Washington, 1918. 

Appletons' Cyclopaedia of American Biography. Edited by J. G. 
Wilson and John Fiske. 7 vols. New York, 1900. 

Biographical Congressional Directory, 1774-1911 (Senate Docu- 
ments, vol. SG, 61st Congress, 2d session). Washington, 1913. 

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition. 29 vols. Cambridge 
and New York, 1910-1911. 

Jeffersonian Cyclopedia .... Edited by John P. Foley. New York 
and London, 1900. Very helpful to a study of the present nature. 

Lamb, Biographical Dictionary of the United States. Edited by 
J. H. Brown. 7 vols. Boston, 1900-1903. 

Pierre Larousse, Grand Dictionnaire Universel Frangais. 15 
vols. 1866-1890. 



146 ^'monarchical'^ tendencies in the united states [146 

National Encyclopaedia of American Biography. 15 vols. New- 
York, 1898-1916. 

New International Encyclopaedia^ 2d edition. 23 vols. New 
York, 1914-1916. 

c. General Historical Accounts 

Henry Adams, History of the United States. 9 vols. New York, 

1889-1891. 
American Historical Association Papers. 5 vols. New York, 

1886-1891. 
American Historical Association Reports, 1 890-191 6. Washington, 

1890-1919. 
George Bancroft, History of the Formation of the Constitution, 

2 vols. New York, 1882. 
J. S. Bassett, a Short History of the United States. New York, 

1914. 
C. L. Becker, Beginnings of the American People (The Riverside 

History of the United States, I). Boston and New York, 1915. 
Edward Channing, A History of the United States. 4 vols. New 

York and London, 1907-1917. 
G. T. Curtis, Constitutional History of the United States. 2 vols. 

New York, 1889-1902. Volume I a reprint from the author's 

History of the Constitution, 1854. Volume W is edited by 

J. C. Clayton. 
Richard Frothingham, Rise of the Republic of the United States. 

Boston, 1872. ■ 

J. C. Hamilton, History of the Republic of the United States of 

America, as Traced in the Writings of Alexander Hamilton. 1 

vols. New York, 1857. 
Richard Hildreth, History of the United States. 6 vols. New 

York, 1849-1856. 
H. E. Von Holst, Constitutional and Political History of the 

United States, Translated by J. J. Lalor. 8 vols. Chicago, 

1879-1892. 
J. B. McMaster, a History of the People of the United States. 8 

vols. New York and London, 1884-1913. 
Justin Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America Bos- 
ton and New York. 8 vols. Copyrighted, 1889. 



147] BIBLIOGRAPHY I47 

2. Works on Special Subjects 

C. F. Adams, Life of John Adams (volume I of Life and Works of 

John Adams). Boston, 1856. 
J. S. Bassett, The Federalist System {The American Nation-. A 

History, XI). New York and London, 1906. 
C. A. Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the 

United States. New York, 1913. 
C, A. Beard, Economic Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy. New 

York, 1915. 

E. E. Beardsley, Life and Correspondence of Samuel Seahury, 
2d edition. Boston, 1881. 

S. F. Bemis, "The Vermont Separatists and Great Britain" 

{American Historical Review, XXI, 547-560). 
T. H. Benton, Thirty Years View . . . of the American Govern- 

ment . . . from 1820-1850. 2 vols. New York, 1856-1858. 
A. J. Beveridge, The Life of John Marshall. 2 vols. Boston and 

New York, 1916. 
Maria Campbell, Revolutionary Services and Civil Life of General 

William Hull. New York and Philadelphia, 1848. 
M. D. Conway, Omitted Chapters of History Disclosed in the Life 

and Papers of Edmund Randolph. 2d edition. New York, 

1889. 
W. S. CuLBERTsoN, Essay on Alexander Hamilton. New Haven 

and London, 1911. 
W. P. and J. P. Cutler, Life, Journals, and Correspondence of 

Manas s eh Cutler, L.L.B. 2 vols. Cincinnati, 1888. 
Henri Doniol, Histoire de la Participation de la France a VEtab- 

lissement des Etats-Unis d'Amerique. 5 vols., Paris, 1886-1892. 

Complement du tome V, 1899. 

F. S. Drake, Life and Correspondence of Henry Knox. Boston, 
1883. 

F. S. Drake, Memorials of the Society of the Cincinnati of Massa- 
chusetts. Boston, 1873. 

Max Farrand, Framing of the Constitution. New Haven, 1913. 

John Fiske, The Critical Period of American History, 1783-1789. 
5th edition. Boston and New York, 1889. 

W. C. Ford, "Manuscripts and Historical Archives" {American 
Historical Association Report, 1913, i, 75-84.) 



148 "monarchical" tendencies in the united states [148 

W. C. FoRDj The spurious Letters of Washington. Brooklyn, 1889. 
T. M. Green, The Spanish Conspiracy^ Cincinnati, 1891. 

B. H. Hall, History of Eastern Vermont. New York, 1858. 

C. D. Hazen, "The French Revolution as Seen by the Americans 
of the Eighteenth Century" {American Historical Association 
Report, 1895, 455-466). 

J. L. Heaton, The Story of Vermont. Boston, copyrighted, 1889. 
S. P. Hildreth, Pioneer History . . . of the Northwest Territory. 
Cincinnati and New York. 1848. 

F. W. HoLDEN, "The Vermont of the Revolution" {The Magazine 
of History, XXII, 38-48; New York and Poughkeepsie, 1916). 

G. E. Howard, Preliminaries of the Revolution, 1763-1775 {The 
American Nation: A History, VIII). New York and London, 
1905. 

Gaillard Hunt, **The President of the United States" {JVis- 

consin Historical Publications, LXIII, 76-98). 
A. B. HuLBERT, Pioneers of the Republic. Chicago, 1906. 
A. B. HuLBERT, editor, Records of the Ohio Company {Marietta 

College Historical Collections, I-III). Marietta, 1917. 
F. L. Humphreys, Life and Times of David Humphreys. 2 vols. 

New York and London, 1917. 
Charles Isham, "A Short Account of the Life and Times of Silas 

Deane" {American Historical Association Papers, III, 41-47). 

New York and London, 1889. 
"Journal of a French Traveller in the Colonies, 1765" (Doc- 
uments) {American Historical Review, XXVI, 726-747; XXVII, 

70-89). 
Friedrich Kapp, Life of John Kalb. New York, 1870. 
Friederich Kapp, Life of Frederick William Von Steuben. New 

York, 1859. 
Richard Krauel, "Prince Henry of Prussia and the Regency of 

the United States, 1786" {American Historical Review, October, 

1911,44-51.) London, 1912. 
H. C. Lodge, Alexander Hamilton {American Statesmen Series). 

Boston, 1896. 
A. C. McLaughlin, The Confederation and the Constitution, 1783- 

1789 {The American Nation: A History, X). New York and 

London, 1905. 
R. M. McElroy, Kentucky inthe Nation s History. New York, 1909. 



149] BIBLIOGRAPHY I49 

Humphrey Marshall, The History of Kentucky. 2d edition. 2 

vols. Frankfort, 1824. 
G. R. MiNOT, History of the Insurrections in Massachusetts. Bos- 
ton, 1788; 2d edition, 1810. 
Julia P. Mitchell, St. Jean de Crevecoeur. New York, 1916. 
A. E. Morse, The Federalist Party in Massachusetts to the Year 

1800. Princeton, 1909. 
F. S. Oliver, Alexander Hamilton; an Essay on American Union, 

"New edition." London, 1907. 
William Plumer, Jr., Life of William Plumer. Boston, 1857. 
C. A. W. PowNALL, Life of Thomas Pownall. London, copy- 
righted 1908. 
C. J. Riethmuller, Alexander Hamilton and His Contempor- 
aries; or, the Rise of the American Constitution. London, 1864. 

A little known life of Hamilton by an Englishman who connects 

Hamilton with his own devotion to the British monarchy. 
A. E. Ryerson, The Loyalists of America and Their Times. 2d. 

edition. 2 vols. Toronto, 1880. 
N. S. Shaler, Kentucky: a Pioneer Commonwealth {American 

Commonwealth Series). Boston, osed. 
C. J. Stille, "Comte de Broglie, the Proposed Stadtholder of 

America" {Pennsylvania Magazine of History, XI, 369-505). 

Philadelphia, 1887. 
C. J. Stille, Life and Times of John Dickinson {Memoirs of the 

Historical Society of Pennsylvania, XIII). Philadelphia, 1891. 
M. C. Tyler, Literary History of the American Revolution, 1763- 

1783. 2 vols. New York, 1897. 
C. H. Van Tyne, The American Revolution, 1776-1783 {The 

American Nation: A History, IX). New York and London, 

1905. 
C. H. Van Tyne, **The Influence of the Clergy ... in the 

American Revolution" {American Historical Review, XIX, 44- 

64). London, 1914. 
C. M. Walsh, The Political Science of John Adams. New York 

and London, 1915. 
Samuel Williams, The Natural and Civil History of Vermont, 2d. 

edition. 2 vols. Burlington, 1809. 
Margaret Woodbury, Public Opinion in Philadelphia, 1789- 

1801 {Smith College Studies in History, vol. V, nos. 1-2). 

Northampton, 1920. 



INDEX 



Adams, John, scorns Paine, 21; refers to 
American monarchy, 22, 120; on 
American republicanism, 22-23, 121; 
a republican, 23,_ 119-121, 123-124;_on 
French generalissimo, 34-35; criti- 
cizes Deane, 34; on Du Coudray and 
French officers, 34; and Defence of 
American Constitutions, 87-88, 119, 
123-124; influences Federal Conven- 
tion, 87-88; accused of monarchical 
tendencies, 115-116, 119-124, 126; 
President, 119; arouses opposition, 
119; influenced by Shays Rebellion, 
119, 124; satirized, 119; compares 
presidency with royalty, 119-120; 
cautions on terminology, 120; op- 
poses French Revolution, 120; writes 
Discourses on Davila, 120; defended 
by Harper, 120; and prediction of 
action as President, 120-121; and in- 
augural address, 121; on Constitution, 
121; dictatorial, 121; his message at- 
tacked, 121; and X.Y.Z. correspond- 
ence, 121; breaks with extreme Fed- 
eralists, 123; and hereditary tenure, 
123; and marriage union with Great 
Britain, 123; interpreted by Jefferson, 
124; changed by mission to England, 
124; and conclusions, 126. See also 
Alien and sedition acts, Defence of the 
Constitutions J Vice President 

Adams, J. Q., and Prince Henry pro- 
ject, 62 

Adams, Samuel, quoted, 13; letter from 
R. H. Lee, 100 

Adet, M., reports to Committee of 
Public Safety, 117; denounces Wash- 
ington, 117; reports Federahsts wish 
to make Washington king, 118; on 
Senators and John Adams as mon- 
archists, 120; on monarchical aspir- 
ations of Hamilton, 125 

Administration, and X.Y.Z. correspond- 
ence, 121. See also Executive 

Alexander, held inferior to Washington, 
35 

Alien and sedition acts, lead to mon- 
archical charges, 121-122; attacked 
by Livingston, 122; and Virginia 
Resolutions, 221 



Allen, Ethan, and return to British rule, 
36,38, 111; writes memorial to Dor- 
chester, 111; says Vermont not sent- 
imentally attached to republicanism, 
111; seeks concessions, 111 

Allen, Ira, and return to British rule, 
36,38 

Allen, Levi, goes to England on reunion 
mission, 111-112; compared with 
Wilkinson, 111-112; motives, 112; 
assertions on loyalty to Great Britain, 
112-113; claims official backing, 112 

"Allen's Party," prefers union with 
British to that with Congress, 112- 
113 

Alliance, with France, 116 

Ambitious men, dangerous to union in 
West, 108 

Amendments, first, fail to meet ob- 
jections to presidency, 101 

American King, in propositions to 
W^ashington, 39, 40-46; and motion by 
Hamilton, 77; perhaps a foreign 
prince, 104; not impossible, 125-126« 
See also Monarchical projects. Throne 

Ames, Fisher, letter from Putnam, 107- 
109; and Ohio Company, 109 

Anglican, See Great Britain 

Antimonarchical arguments, refuted, 23 

Antimonarchical government, on trial, 
26 

Antimonarchical principles, oppose 
British subordination, 17 

Antimonarchical satire, ridicules con- 
temporary kings, 18. See also 
George III, ridiculed 

Antimonarchical spirit, in pre-revolu- 
tionary period, 22 n, 26; cited in Con- 
vention, 94; in French Revolution, 
116; predominates, 128 

Antimonarchical tendencies. See 
"Pennsylvania Farmer" 

Apologies by Nicola, for monarchical 
propositions, Appendix A 

Aristocracy, and monarchy, 83, 120 

Armstrong, General, and monarchical 
charges, 61-62; Secretary of War, 61; 
and Hull, 61; and Steuben, 61-62; and 
Newburgh Address, 62 

Army, monarchical in spirit, 27, 40; 



151 



152 



MONARCHICAL TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES 



[152 



and grievances, 42, 49-51; remedy 
proposed, 42-46; and civil war, 42, 
49; and constitution making, 42-43; 
saved from ruin, 49; and distress of 
St. Clair, 49-50; discussed by Wash- 
ington, 50; and Newburgh Addresses, 
50-52; and mutiny, 53, 69 n; and 
monarchical tendencies, 81, 122-123; 
of Great Britain, 123; raised against 
France, 125-126; and Hamilton, 126; 
and Washington, 126 

Articles of Confederation, criticized, 
47-49, 55; remedied, 48-49, praised, 
54; revision planned, 76; defence 
urged, 81. See also United States 

Asiatic monarchies, not models, 77 

Atlantic states, seditious and inharmon- 
ious, 106 

AurorUy attacks Jay's treaty, 117; on 
monarchism of President, 117-118; 
justifies appeal to people, 118; praises 
Washington, 118; on royal faction in 
war with France, 121 



Bache, B. F., and ahen and sedition 
acts, 122 

Baldwin, Abraham, represents Georgia, 
77; declares no monarchical tend- 
encies in Convention, 77; makes 
monarchical charges against Hamil- 
ton, 77 

Barbour, Senator, and monarchical 
charges against Rufus King, 62 

"Barons of the South," mentioned by 
John Adams, 25 

Bastile, and criticism of Alien Bill, 122 

Belknap, Jeremy, on respect for King, 
9 n; identified, 56; defends monarchy, 
56 

Benton, T. H., and Thirty Years' View, 
VTJ; on words of Rufus King, 127; 
contrasts attitude of old and new 
generation on monarchy, 127 

Beveridge, A. J., on John Marshall, 115; 
on belief in monarchical tendencies, 
115; on lack of basis for monarchical 
fears, 115; on poHtical propaganda, 
115; on character of the masses, 115 

Bill of rights, wins support for Consti- 
tution, 101 

Bishop, W., on monarchical features of 
Constitution, 100 n 

Bishop of Osnaburgh, and American 
monarchy, 82; identified, 82 n 

Bishops, detested, 15 

Blackstone, known in America, 88 

Blount Conspiracy, and alliance with 
British, 114; against Spanish, 114; 
not separatist movement, 114; com- 



pared with separatist movements, 
114 

Bond, Phineas, British consul, 97 n; 
says nothing on monarchical^ ten- 
dencies, 97 n 

Bowdoin, Governor, fears dissolution of 
union, 69; visited by Crevecoeur, 71; 
and monarchical tendencies, 71 

Brandenburgh, see House of Branden- 
burgh 

Braxton, Carter, aristocratic Virginian, 
24; member of Congress, 24; signer of 
Declaration of Independence, 24; 
possible author of defence of mon- 
archy, 24-25 

British Constitution. See Constitu- 
tion of Great Britain 

British Court. See Great Britain 

British King, attacked, 17; satirized, 18; 
responsible for Revolutionary War, 
35; in comparison with President, 121, 
See also Charles I, Charles II, George 
III, Royal authority, Stuarts 

British monarchy, censured by Paine, 
21. See also British Kings 

British officials. See Great Britain 

British prince, and American throne. 
See Great Britain 

Broglie, Charles Francois, Count de, 
and military dictatorship, 27; early 
career, 27; characterized, 27; con- 
fused with Marshal Broglie, 34; dis- 
illusioned, 35; held inferior to Wash- 
ington, 35. See also Broglie plan 

Broglie plan, analyzed, 29-30; conjec- 
tures concerning, 29; guards against 
monarchy, 29-30; supported by Kalb, 
31-32; and Declaration of Independ- 
ence, 31-32; and Deane's opinion, 32; 
reception in America, 33, 35; and 
French officers, 33; published, 33; 
suppressed, 34; incorrectly referred to 
by John Adams, 34 

Broom, Jacob, represents Delaware, 90; 
approves good behavior term for 
executives, 90; not influential, 90 

Brunswick. See House of Brunswick 

Burke, Aedanus, attacks Cincinnati, 
52; identified, 52 n 

Camden, Lord, honored in celebration o f 
Stamp Act repeal, 10-1 1 

Camillus, writes on monarchy, 80-81 

Campaign literature, against Washing- 
ton, 118 

Canada, independence predicted, 45; 
and monarchy, 45-46; has spies in 
United States, 71-72; and friendly 
attitude of Americans, 104-115; un- 



153] 



INDEX 



153 



suited to govern West, 108; important 
to Vermont's commerce, 114. See 
also Dorchester, Separatism, Simcoe, 
Vermont 

Canadian Archives, as source, 114 

Candidus. See Adams, Samuel 

Carrington, Edward, explains monarch- 
ical tendencies, 79 n; fears monarchi- 
cal tendencies, 100; letter from Ham- 
ilton, 124 

Ceremonial, and Washington, 116; and 
monarchical tendencies, 116, 119; and 
John Adams, 119, 122 

Channing, Edward, praises Washing- 
ton's rebuke to Nicola, 46; on Mon- 
archical project of 1786, 6S n 

Charles I, tyranny cited, 13, 17, 19 

Charles II, mentioned, 15 

Charleston, and Gorham, GG\ burned, 66 

Chittenden, Governor, and return to 
British rule, 36, 112-114; states case, 
37 n. See also "Allen's Party" 

Choiseul, Duke of, sends Kalb to 
America, 30-31 

Cincinnati, Order of, and monarchical 
tendencies, 50, 52, 73, 95, 97; de- 
scribed, 52 n; mentioned, 53; ad- 
dressed by Hull, 73; republicanism 
praised, 73-74; satirized, 73 n; oppose 
Shays Rebellion, 73 n, 80 n; rela- 
tions with Newburgh Petitioners and 
Ohio Company, 74; and Philadel- 
phia Convention, 79 n, 95 n; feeble 
and unpopular, 95 

Civil War. See Army 

CHnton, Sir Henry, letter from Lord 
Haldimand on Vermont, 38 

Committee of Public Safety. See 
French Committee of Public Safety 

Common Sense^ exerts great influence, 
21, 26 

Commons, for United States, 22, 77 

Conde, Prince of, held inferior to Wash- 
ington, 2S 

Confederation of the United States, and 
Vermont, 36, 39. See also United States 

Congress, potential tyrant, 20; should 
be strong, 25; and foreign general- 
issimo, 28; and Deane's letters, 34; 
and Vermont, 37-38, 113-114; and 
army, 42, 44, S?>; not well supported, 
42; and Nicola propositions, 44, 
Appendix A; flees, 53, 69 n; and 
monarchical tendencies, 53; ratifies 
Treaty, 54; and quorum diffi- 
culties, 54-55; and Monroe's ob- 
servations as member, 59-60; mis- 
treats Steuben, 63; and Gorham, 
66-69; and Hancock, 67; calls Fed- 
eral Convention, 76; inadequate, 87; 



and British prince, 105; ineffective on 
frontier, 106-110; not necessarily pre- 
ferable to foreign government, 108; 
and war with France against Great 
Britain, 114; and President, 121; and 
France, 121. See also United States 

Connecticut, and letter on monarchy, 
97; and Loyalists, 97; and Episcopal 
bishop, 125 

Constitution, Federal. See Federal 
Constitution 

Constitution of Great Britain, lauded 
by Americans, 13; lauded by Henry 
of Prussia, 65; admired in New Eng- 
land, 72 

Constitution of Virginia, little affected 
by monarchical arguments, 25 

Constitutional Convention. See Fed- 
eral Convention 

Constitutions of states, democratic, 22 

Continental Congress. See Congress 

Contract theory of kingship, acclaimed, 
18; basis for Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, 18; basis of sedition, 20; 
upheld by Rationalis, 23-24 

Convention of 1787. See Federal Con- 
vention 

Cornwallis, General, and return of 
Vermont to Great Britain, 114 

Correspondence. See names of indi- 
viduals, as Adams, Jefferson, etc. 

Crevecoeur, St. John de, on Vermont, 
38 n; French consul, 70; visits Bos- 
ton, 70; reports monarchical ten- 
dencies, 71-72, 96; makes conserva- 
tive report, 71 n; will support Con- 
stitution, 72 n 

"Critical Period," bright and dark 
side, 54-56_ 

Cromwell, Oliver, mentioned, 16, 24 

Currency shortage, and public reven- 
ues, 47 

Cutting, J. B., defends Constitution, 
101 n 



Dane, Nathan, writes to Knox on mon- 
archical tendencies, 72 
"Dangerous Vice," See Adams (John) 
David, King. See King David 
Deane, Silas, and Kalb, 28, 32; and 
Broglie plan, 28, 32-34; and factional 
quarrels, 32; criticized, 32-34; pessi- 
mistic, 32; reports to Jay, 32; and 
diplomacy, 32; and French officers, 
32; defended by Franklin, 32-33; 
recalled, 33; exposed in press, 33; 
opposed by Paine, 33-34; letters read 
in Congress, 34; and comment by 
Samuel Adams, 34 n 



154 



MONARCHICAL TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES 



[154 



Decentralization in government, evi- 
dent, 22. See also United States 

Declaration of Independence, and con- 
tract theory, 18; attacks George III, 
21; and legal basis, 21 n; and Broglie 
plan, 31-32 

Defence of the American Constitutions. 
See Defence of the Constitutions of the 
United States 

Defence of the Constitutions of the United 
States^ influences Federal Convention, 
87-88; as monarchical propaganda, 
87, 123; praises British Constitution, 
88; described and criticized, 119; de- 
fended, 120, 123-124; commented on 
by Jefferson, 124; and monarchists, 
124 

Delaware, votes for strong executive, 
92. See also Broom, Read 

Democracy, mentioned, 87; feared, 88; 
and monarchical charges, 116; and 
French Revolution, 116-117. See 
also Republican government, etc. 

Democrats, remove royal emblem, 116; 
make monarchical charges, 116-117; 
love Washington, 118-119; "saved 
country," 126. See also Adams, 
Aurora^ Jefferson, Madison, Mon- 
archical changes, Monroe 

Despot. See King, Monarch, Tyranny 

"Desultory Reflexions By a Gentle- 
man of Kentucky," forwarded to 
Sydney, 106; recommends mon- 
archy, 106; compared with earlier 
reports, 106-107 

Dickinson, John, opposes independence, 
88; admires limited monarchy, 88; 
opposes monarchy for America, 88; 
approves Hamilton plan, 88-89 

Discourses on Davila. See Adams 
(John) 

Disunion, predicted, 69 

Dorchester, Governor, has spies in 
United States, 71-72, 74; and data 
on monarchical tendencies, 78-79; 
letter from Sydney, 96; reports 
to Sydney, 96-97, 104-107; receives 
secret reports, 104-107; receives 
memorial from Ethan Allen, 111 

Du Coudray, and French officers for 
United States, 34 

Duer, William, friend of Steuben, 63 

Dundas, Henry, British home secre- 
tary, 112; approached by Levi Allen, 
112-113 ^ 



Eastern states. See Northern states 

Elective monarchy, and loophole left by 

Paine^ 21; and loophole left by John 



Adams, 23; and example of Poland, 
24; its principles recommended for 
Virginia, 25; and presidency, 99-101 

Emblems of royalty, destroyed, 21-22, 
116 

"Emperor of the world," and Wash- 
ington, 117 

England. See Great Britain 

English domination. See Great Britain 

English King. See British King 

English people, as viewed by Americans, 
13-14, 14 n; praised by Junius, 16; 
and hypothetical case of return to 
Norman allegiance, 95 

Episcopal bishop, precedent for mon- 
archy, 125 

Epithets in chronological table, 16; and 
monarchical charges, 126 

European kings, as examples of tyranny, 
18 

European monarchies, praised, 43; not 
models, 77 

Excise tax, precedent for monarchy, 125 

Executive, annual, 78; for life, 78; uni- 
fied type monarchical, 81, 83-84; and 
tenure, 84; and monarchical powers, 
84-85, 122; a strong type advocated, 
89, 92; and opposition to Constitution, 
99-101; and army, 99; and presiden- 
tial chair, 115-116; suppresses Whis- 
key Insurrection, 117; prefers mon- 
archy, 120; and war with France, 
122; and Alien Bill, 122; attacked, 
122; and Virginia Resolutions, 122. 
See also Hamilton plan. Hereditary 
president. Monarch, President 

Family compact. See House of Han- 
over 

"Farmer Refuted," 20. See also Ham- 
ilton, "Westchester Farmer" 

Fay, Colonel, and return to British 
rule, 114 

Federal Constitution, praised by Var- 
num, 48-49; and British Constitu- 
tion, 72; reception uncertain, 94-95; 
pubHshed, 98; opposed as monarchi- 
cal, 98-101; accepted, 101, defended, 
101 n; and forced construction, 122; 
welcomed by "monarchists," 127 

Federal Convention, mentioned, 58, 
78, 101; Gorham a member, 69; and 
pessimism of Gorham, 69; and pro- 
ject for British ruler, 72, 78-79, 9S; 
called by Congress, 76; purpose, 76; 
described, 76; and monarchical ten- 
dencies, 77, 79, 82, 85, 128; sentiment 
at opening, 79; and antimonarchical 
article, 80-81; and opinions of dele- 



155] 



INDEX 



155 



gates, 81-82; and advocacy of mon- 
archy, 82-83; and definition of mon- 
archy, 83-85; and source of popular 
opposition, 93; expectations, 94-95; 
and monarchical plans of the Cin- 
cinnati, 95. See also Hamilton plan 

Federalists, and newspaper article on 
monarchical project of 1786, 58-59; 
monarchical, 61, 115-126; and Loyal- 
ists, 104; on charges against President, 
117; wish to make Washington king, 
118; defined, 122; and monarchical 
expectations, 122; satirized, 122-123; 
break with John Adams, 123; and 
monarchical propositions, 125 

Ferdinand, Prince, suggested as general- 
issimo, 28; ridiculed, 34 n; held in- 
ferior to Washington, 35. See also 
House of Brunswick 

Force, unpopular in suppressing Whis- 
key Insurrection, 125 

Ford, W. C, quoted, 58; consulted, 65 n 

Foreign intermeddling, charged, 99 n. 
See also France, Great Britain, etc. 

Foreign precedents, and presidency, 
100. See also Monarchy, Republic 

Foreign prince, and American throne, 
78 n, 104. See also Henry of Prussia, 
House of Hanover 

France, mentioned, 100, 116; and aid 
of United States against Great Bri- 
tain, 114; and war with England, 114, 
120, 123, 128; aids United States, 
116; and war with United States, 
118, 121-122. See also French and 
Indian War, French Committee, etc. 

Frankhn, Benjamin, defends Deane, 
32-33; speech used by Gorham, 70; 
on inevitability of monarchy, 81-82, 
82 n; and anecdote on monarchy, 
94 n; on reunion project, 96 n 

Frederick II of Prussia, held inferior to 
Washington, 35 

French and Indian War, mentioned, 66 

French Committee of Public Safety, 
addressed by Adet on monarchism, 
117 

French Consul, in New York. See 
Crevecoeur 

French Consul General. See Adet 

French court, aiming at military con- 
trol in United States, 34 

French King, satirized, 18; and Ameri- 
can gratitude, 35; and American atti- 
tude towards kingship, 35. See also 
Louis XVI 

Prench officers, unpopular in United 
States, 33 n, 35. See also Adams 
(John), Broglie plan, Deane, Du 
Coudray 



French prince, and American throne, 
65,78n 

French Revolution, effects in United 
States described, 116-117; effects 
ridiculed, 116; and American grati- 
tude, 116-117; opposed by Washing- 
ton, 116-117; opposed by John Adams 
120-121. See Gen6t 

Freneau, Philip, verse on kings, 35 

Frontier, and monarchical projects, 
101-115. See also West 



Gates, General, and Newburgh Ad- 
dress, 51 n 

General assembly of Vermont, backs 
Levi Allen, 112 

Generalissimo, foreign, suggested for 
Americans, 28; and elective mon- 
archy, 29. See also Broglie plan, 
Congress, Deane 

Genet, M., and Kentucky, 103 n; im- 
prudent, 117; causes reaction in 
America, 117 

Genoa, and failure of republics, 43 

George III of England, and devotion of 
Stamp Act Congress, 9; indicted in 
Declaration of Independence, 9, 21; 
and growing hostility, 9; exalted 
during Stamp Act controversy, 9-11; 
attacked by Henry, 10 n; and per- 
sistence of loyalty, 11-13; fails to 
help colonies, 13; honest, 14; held 
responsible, 14-15; ridiculed, 14-15 
n; and description of American atti- 
tude by Junius, 15; warned, 15-16; 
praised, 16; and suspension of judg- 
ment, 16; and destruction of royal 
emblems, 21-22, 116; toasted, 38 n; 
and son as king, 59 n, 78; and Henry 
of Prussia, 61. See also Contract 
theory. Declaration of Independence, 
Junius 

Georgia, represented by Baldwin, 77; 
mentioned, 78; and separatism, 101 n 

Gerry, Elbridge, on monarchical ten- 
dencies in Convention 82, 85; on 
antimonarchical zeal, 94 

Gilman, Nicholas, on monarchical 
tendencies in Convention, 82 

Goliath, mentioned, 35 

Gorham, Nathaniel, and offer of crown 
to Prince Henry, 60-61, 65-66; life 
and character, 65-68; and lack of 
written evidence, 65 n, 68; president 
of Congress, 67-69; and Phelps and 
Gorham's Purchase, 67; political 
views, 68-69; not averse to New Eng- 
land Confederacy, 68; activities in 
Congress, 68-69; and New Jersey 



iS6 



MONARCHICAL TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES 



[IS& 



negative, 69; letter from Bowdoin, 
69; in Federal Convention, 69; "high 
toned," 69; forecasts separatism, 
69, 109; works for ratification, 69-70; 
and flight of Congress, 69 n; uses 
Franklin's speech, 70; defends presi- 
dency, 70; rejoices at ratification by- 
Virginia, 70; writes to Washington, 
70; in summary, 74; and Ohio Com- 
pany, 74 n, 109-110; on monarchy, 89. 
See also Monarchical project of 1786 

Gorham family, consulted, 65 n 

Government reform, in America, 24 

Governor and Council of Vermont. 
See Vermont 

Grayson, William, opposes reeligibility 
of president, 99; letter from Short, 
100 

Great Britain, its mixed government 
praised, 20-21, 43; and a colonial 
stadtholder, 32 n; origin, 43; as 
model for United States, 43-44, 72, 
78, 83-84,86-88, 91, 99, 120-122; and 
reunion movement, 71-72, 96 n, 97, 
104-115; and mission on monarchi- 
cal project, 78, 78 n; and American 
monarchy, 78 n, 85-88, 96-97, 123; 
and definition of republic, 83; and 
Loyalists, 104-105; and Wilkinson, 
104 n; preferred to Congress, 108; 
and Vermont, 113; uncertain as to 
border posts, 113; involved in Nootka 
Sound controversy, 113; develops 
sentiment in Vermont, 113; finds 
negotiations with Vermont futile, 
113-114; and Vermont neutrality, 
113-114; and new war with United 
States, 113-114; and Blount Con- 
spiracy, 114; and war with France, 
114, 120, 123, 128; mentioned, 117, 
120-121; and "Letter to Mazzei," 
120; and Anglican party, 120; and 
marriage alliance with United States, 
123; influences John Adams, 124. 
See also Limited monarchy 

Great Seal of Vermont, on commission 
to Levi Allen, 112 

Green Mountain State. See Vermont 



Haldimand, Lord, intermediary, 36 n; 
letter to Clinton, 38; on return of 
Vermont to British rule, 38 

Hamilton, Alexander, refutes "West- 
chester Farmer," 20; laments quarrel 
with mother country, 20; favors 
limited monarchy, 20; welcomes un- 
rest in army, 51; and Morris, 51; 
and monarchical charges, 59, 59 n, 
77, 82, 125-126; friend to Steuben, 



63; moves for "King, Lords dz Com- 
mons," 77, 82; denies monarchical 
charges, 82; on republican govern- 
ment, 82-83, 85-86; defines terms,. 
83-84; admires British Constitution, 
83-87; on democracy, 83 n, 86-87;. 
gives formula for government, 86j 
absent from Convention, 90; trusts 
Rufus King, 90; relations with Wash- 
ington, 92; on public opinion, 93; 
criticized by Jefferson, 93; reports 
speech on monarchy, 94; and Loyal- 
ists as monarchists, 97; on reunion 
with Great Britain, 97; on opposition 
of France, 97; Federalist "Colossus," 
124; dangerous, 124; and finance, 124; 
and "Seeds of hereditary power," 124; 
republican, 124; not sure of republican 
success, 124-125; and political philoso- 
phy, 125; helps suppress Whiskey In- 
surrection, 125; charged with mon- 
archical aspirations, 125; compared to 
king's minister, 125; under Washing- 
ton, 125; rules cabinet of Adams, 
125; suggested as ruler, 125; com- 
mands army, 125-126; and conclusion^ 
126. See also Hamilton plan 

Hamilton plan, mentioned, 82, 97; 
analyzed, 85-86; interpreted, 85 n, 
86-87; and New Jersey plan, 87; 
support in Convention, 88-93; and 
public opinion, 92-98; in report to 
Dorchester, 104; made public, 125 

Hancock, John, succeeded in Congress 
by Gorham, 67 

Hanover. See House of Hanover 

Harper, R. G., defends John Adams 
against monarchical charges, 120 

Hebrew precedent, for kingship, 21, 23 

Henry of Prussia, Prince, and offer of 
American crown, 58-66, 69; letter to 
Steuben, 64-65; mentioned, 72. See 
also Gorham, Monarchical project of 
1786 

Henry, Patrick, attacks George IH, 
10 n; ridicules defence of monarchy, 
25; denounces Constitution, 99; on 
monarchical potentialities of presi- 
dency, 99 

Hereditary monarchy, arguments 
against, 24; upheld by RationaliSy 
24; desired, 78 

Hereditary president, as object of John 
Adams, 120, 123 

Hereditary tenure. See Executive,. 
Senate 

Holland. See Netherlands 

House of Assembly, annually elected,, 
78. See also General Assembly 

House of Brandenburgh, and monarchi- 



157] 



INDEX 



157 



calprojectof 1786, 59 

House of Brunswick, and prince for 
America, 22, 105. See also House of 
Hanover 

House of Hanover, and American mon- 
arch, 78, 96-97, 123 

House of Nobles, in Hamilton plan, 
77, essential to monarchy, 88; im- 
possible in United States, 88. See 
also Nobility 

Hulbert, A. B., on Ohio Company, 74 

Hull, General, and monarchical charges, 
61, 61 n; court-martialed, 61, 61 n; 
and public services, 61 n; addresses 
Cincinnati, 73-74; eulogizes Louis 
XVI, 73; on republican success, 73- 
74; praises Cincinnati, 74 

Humphreys, Colonel, seen by Creve- 
coeur, 71; on letter on monarchical 
plan, 97; on Loyalists, 97; on reunion 
with Great Britain, 97 

Independence, and warning of "Pennsyl- 
vania Farmer/' 19; endangered, 47- 
48. See also Declaration of Inde- 
pendence 

Independence Day, oration, 48-49, 
73-74; celebration satirized, 122-123; 
and monarchical tendencies, 122-123 

Indians, menace, 114 

Ingratitude, to France, 116 

Italian cities, praised for republican- 
ism, 17 

Jackson, Andrew, letter from Monroe 
on monarchical tendencies, 59-61 

Jameson, J. F., consulted, 65 n 

Jay, John, and reports from Deane, 32; 
on Shays Rebellion and monarchy, 
57; writes to Jefferson, 57; writes to 
Washington, 57; letter from Wash- 
ington, 57-58; mentioned, 58; friend 
to Steuben, 63 

Jay treaty, and Washington, 117; at- 
tacked, 117; supported by Hamilton, 
125 

Jefferson, Thomas, on monarchical ten- 
dencies in army, 27, 40; further 
monarchical charges, 56; compares 
American and European govern- 
ments, 56 n; on political views of 
younger generation, 56 n; letter from 
Jay, 57; on monarchical tendencies in 
Convention, 77; criticizes Hamilton, 
93; letter from Madison, 94-95; and 
"Letter to Mazzei," 120; interprets 
John Adams, 124 

Jeffersonian democrats. See Democrats 

Jerseys. See New Jersey 



Judiciary, monarchical, 120 

Junius, his "Letters" printed in Ameri- 
ca, 15; on monarchical ideas in Ameri- 
ca, 15; his identity, 15; his effective- 
ness, 15; on King and Ministry, 
15-16; compared with Paine, 15-16; 
praises King, 16; warns King, 16 

Kalb, General, calls on Deane, 28 j 
identified, 28; and America, 28; aim, 
28; and Broghe plan, 28, 30-32; com- 
pares United States with Nether- 
lands, 30; on character of Broglie, 30; 
earlier mission to America, 30-31; 
on undue exaltation of Washington, 
35 ^ _ 

Kapp, Friedrich, on monarchical pro- 
ject of 1786, 63 

Kentucky, and monarchical projects, 
101-104, 103-104 n, 106-107, 114; 
and Spanish trade, 111-112; and pro- 
Spanish sentiment, 111-112; and pro- 
British sentiment, 113 

King, detested, 15; "can do no wrong," 
17; and theory of exclusive alliance, 
20; tyrannical, 38; and Vermont, 
38; on Nicola plan, 45; distasteful to 
Washington, 1 1 7. See also American 
King, European Kings, Frederick 11^ 
French King, George III, Kings, 
Kingship, Louis XVI, Spanish King 

King David, praised as exception, 35. 
See also Hebrew precedent 

"King of England, ' toasted, 123 

King Solomon, praised as exception, 35, 
See also Hebrew precedent 

King, Rufus, and monarchical charges, 
61-62, 62 n; and appointment to 
England, 62; votes for strong pro- 
posals in Convention, 89-90; satirical, 
90; close to Hamilton, 90; quoted by 
Benton, 127 

Kings, in verses by Freneau, 35 

Kingship, and growing hostility, 9; 
in American colonial theory, 11, 12; 
its pageantry detested, 15; attacked 
by Paine, 15-16, 21; not attacked by 
Junius, 16; and contract theory, 18, 
24; defended, 19; and analysis of 
Paine's attack, 21; and Hebrews, 
21, 23; and public opinion, 21; not 
attacked in Declaration of Indepen- 
dence, 21; momentarily detested, 21- 
22; popular, 26. See also Royalty 

Knox, General, declared a monarchist, 
40; writes to Washington on mon- 
archical tendencies, 72 

Krauel, Richard, on monarchical pro- 
ject of 1786, 64-65 



iS8 



MONARCHICAL TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES 



[iS8 



Land grant, to army men, 44-45; frauds, 
107; to Ohio Company, 107 

Lee, Charles, on foreign generalissimo, 
34 n 

Lee, R. H., writes to Samuel Adams, 
100; denounces Constitution, 100 

Legislative tyranny, 84 

Legislature, partly monarchical, 120 

"'Letter to Mazzei," by Jefferson, 120; 
makes monarchical charges, 120 

Lettres de Cachet^ and criticism of Alien 
Bill, 122 

Limited monarchy, defined, 20-21; 
praised by Hamilton, 20, 85-86; 
praised by Dickinson, 88; impracti- 
cable for America, 88. See also 
Adams (John), United States 

■"Lion and the Fox," political fable, 16 

Livingston, Edward, attacks Alien 
Bill, 122 

Locke, known in America, 88 

London, mentioned, 86, 100 

Lords, and motion by Hamilton, 77. 
See Nobility. 

Louis XVI, praised by Hull, 73 

Louisiana, and Wilkinson's proposi- 
tions, 102 

Lowndes, Rawlins, in South Carolina 
convention, 99; on monarchical fea- 
tures of Constitution, 99 

Loyalists, and monarchical tendencies, 
95; and letter on monarchical plan, 
97; weak in United States, 97; become 
Federalists, 104; oppose Constitu- 
tion, 104-105; and reunion with 
Great Britain, 104-105; and politics, 
105 n 



McClurg, James, represents Virginia, 
84; on monarchy and tyranny, 84; 
moves good behavior term for exe- 
cutive, 90; not influential, 90; 
seconded by Morris, 91 

McDougall, General, and Newburgh 
Address, 50 

Madison, James, on McDougall's pre- 
sentation of Newburgh Address, 50; 
on Gorham, 67; defines republic, 83; 
on remarks by Hamilton, 85; on re- 
marks by Rufus King, 90; supports 
good behavior term for executive, 
90; declares republic only government 
for America, 90-91 ; on public opinion, 
93-94; writes to Jefferson, 94-95; on 
expectations of Convention, 94-95; 
opposes John Adams, 121 

Maillebois, Marshal, characterized by 
John Adams, 34 

Mariej:ta, Ohio, and Varnum's oration, 48 



Marshall, John, mentioned, 115 

Martin, Luther, represents Maryland, 
77; addresses legislature, 77; on mon- 
archical tendencies in Convention, 
77; and basis of charges, 77 n 

Maryland. See Martin 

Mason, George, represents Virginia, 79; 
on monarchical tendencies, 79-82; 
and sources of information, 79 n; 
on executive, 81, 84-85, 99; refuses to 
sign Constitution, 82; opposes Morris 
as monarchist, 91; on antimonarchi- 
cal sentiment, 94; opposes reeligi- 
bihty of president, 99 

Massachusetts, hostile to Vermont, 36; 
served by Gorham, 66-67, 69-70; and 
ratification, 69-70; and monarchical 
tendencies, 70-73, 75; on monarchy 
and democracy, 72. See also Bow- 
doin, Crevecoeur, Dane, Gorham, 
Putnam, Shays Rebellion 

Mazzei. See "Letter to Mazzei" 

Middle states, republican, 79 

Military State. See Nicola, Varnum, 
West 

Miller, Colonel, on monarchical project 
of 1786, 61 

Minister, and Hamilton, 125 

Minister Genet. See Genet 

Ministry, and American attitude, 9-10, 
10 n, 13-15; and King, 14-15; criti- 
cized by Junius, 16 

Minot, G. R., on monarchical tenden- 
cies, SS 

Mississippi colony, projected, 106; at- 
titude towards Spain, 106; attitude 
towards Canada, 106 

Mississippi navigation, problem, 108- 
109 

Monarch, defined, 83; inevitable, 91 

"Monarch of Mount Vernon." See 
Washington 

"Monarchical," explained, 126 

Monarchical charges, and politics, 60, 
62, 127-128; against delegates to 
Convention, 77; most numerous 
under Federalist regime, 115; and 
French Revolution, 116-117, 127, 128; 
explained, 127-128. See also Adams 
(John), Baldwin, Gorham, Hamil- 
ton, Jefferson, King (Rufus), Madison, 
Monroe, Washington 

Monarchical government, not inferior 
to republican form, 38; recommended, 
106; as means to end, 110; and satire 
on Federalists, 122-123. See also 
"Desultory Reflexions," Gorham, 
Hamilton, Monarchical projects, 
Morris, Nicola, Tupper, Varnum 

Monarchical principles, defended for 



159] 



INDEX 



159 



local government, 25 

Monarchical project of 1786, and dearth 
of evidence, 5S, 61; and newspaper 
articles, 58-59; referred to by Mon- 
roe, 59-61; and charges against 
Rufus King, 61-62; disposed of by 
J. Q. Adams, 62; mentioned, 72; 
summarized, 74-75; and clue to 
methods, 89. See also Gorham, 
Henry of Prussia, Kapp, Krauel, 
Mulligan 

Monarchical projects, and army, 39, 
40-51; and Nicola's apologies. Ap- 
pendix A; on frontier, 101-115; take 
no definite form under Federalist 
regime, 115; feature Hamilton, 125; 
and conclusions, 127-128. See 
also Allen, Canada, Gorham, Great 
Britain, Kentucky, Nicola, Ohio 
settlements, Spain, Tennessee, Var- 
num, Wilkinson 

Monarchical reaction. See Monarchi- 
cal tendencies 

Monarchical republic. See Adams 
(John), United States government 

Monarchical spirit, mentioned, 26 

Monarchical tendencies, linger, 22; in 
army, 27, 40; and Vermont, 35-39; 
inherent in American character, 47; 
counteracted by Constitution, 49; 
and Newburgh Address, 50; and 
Cincinnati, 50, 52, 95; and Hamilton, 
51; in Congress, 53; in New England, 
55-59, 79; and Shays Rebellion, 55- 
59; described by Minot, 55; defended 
by Belknap, 56; defended by Plumer, 
56-57; explained by Jay, 57-58; in 
northern states, 70-73, 79, 79 n; defen- 
ded by Tupper 72-73; and circumstan- 
tial evidence, 74, on eve of Convention, 
78; at opening of Convention, 79; ex- 
plained and condemned, 80-81; feared 
in Convention, 81-82, 95; inevitable, 
81-82, 82 n; in Convention, 82; 
denied, 82; in writings of John Adams, 
87; feared as reaction, 94; among 
Loyalists, 95-97; reported in Europe, 
95; ridiculed by Short, 95-96; and 
Short's change of opinion, 96; in 
Connecticut, 97; among Loyalists, 
97; in Constitution, 99, 101; increas- 
ing, 100; described in secret report, 
104-105; and separatism, 114-115; 
among New England Federalists, 
115; during Federalist administra- 
tions, 115-126; and conclusions, 127- 
128. See also Adams (John), Aurora^ 
Beveridge, Canada, Ceremonial, 
Dickinson, Dorchester, Executive, 
Federal Convention, Gorham, Great 



Britain, Hamilton, Hamilton plan. 
House of Hanover, Mason, Monarchi- 
cal charges, Monarchical projects, 
Morison, Morris, Randolph, Short. 
For division by periods see Table 
of Contents 

Monarchism. See Monarchical charges, 
etc. 

"Monarchists," summarized, 126; 
characterized, 127-128. See also 
Adams (John), Gorham, Hamilton, 
Washington, etc. 

Monarchy, attacked, 21, 23, 26; dis- 
cussed by members of Congress, 23; 
defended, 23-26; ridiculed, 23, 25; 
and tyranny, 45, 83-84, 89; termi- 
nology explained, 72 n, 126; opposed 
by Morris, 91; and republican 
remedy, 91; and services of JefFer- 
sonian democrats, 126. See also- 
Adams (John), American King, 
Asiatic monarchies, Braxton, Brit- 
ish monarchy. Elective monarchy,, 
European monarchy, Henry, (Pat- 
rick), Hereditary monarchy, Limited, 
monarchy. Throne, Tupper, Varnum, 
Zubly 

Monroe, James, writes to Jackson on 
monarchical tendencies, 59-61; state- 
ment to Swift on same, 60; state- 
ment to Miller on samej 61; opposes- 
reeligibility of president, 99 

Montesquieu, known in America, 88 

Morison, S. E., consulted, 65 n, 115 n; 
on Northern Confederacy, 75 n; on 
New England federalism and mon- 
archical tendencies, 75 n, 115 

Morris, Gouverneur, and Newburgk 
Address, 51; and Hamilton, 51;, 
named minister to France, 91; criti- 
cized as monarchist, 91; declares 
opposition to monarchy, 91; suggests 
remedy for monarchical tendencies, 
91; "fickle," 91; on British Consti- 
tution, 91; on executive, 91, 91 n; on 
senators, 91 

Mulligan, J. W., Steuben's secretary, 
62-63; on Prince Henry project, 63 

Muskingum settlements, have personal 
regard for President, 107; no regard 
for Congress, 107; defrauded, 107; 
tender towards Great Britain, 107 

Mutiny. See Army 



Nassau, Prince of, model for general- 
issimo, 29 

"Native of Pennsylvania," charges 
President with monarchism, 117-118; 
upholds Adet, 118; justifies appeal 



i6o 



MONARCHICAL TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES 



1 60 



to the people, 118 

TsFelson, William, writes to Short on 
hereditary tendency of presidency, 
100-101 

Netherlands, Dutch, in comparison 
with United States, 30, 43, 46; and 
definition of republic, 83. See also 
Nassau, Stadtholder 

Neutrality. See Proclamation of Neu- 
trality 

T^ew England, center of unrest, 55; 
confederacy acceptable to Gorham, 
68; and monarchical tendencies, 70- 
75, 79; center of federalism, 115. 
See also Morison, also names of in- 
dividual states 

New Hampshire, and monarchical ten- 
dencies, 26 n; hostile to Vermont, 36; 
mentioned, 78. See also Plumer 

T^ew Jersey, negatives requisition plan, 
69. See also New Jersey plan, Pat- 
erson 

New Jersey plan, most representative, 
76-77 n; and Hamilton plan, 87; and 
progress of public opinion, 93 

New York, hostile to Vermont, 36-37; 
and a New England monarchy, 75; 
model for federal government, 78 

Newburgh, military encampment, 39; 
and monarchical propositions, 39 

Newburgh Addresses, and monarchical 
tendencies, 40, 50; and presentation 
of first address, 50-51; and anony- 
mous character of second address, 
51, 51 n; second address discredited, 
51-52; and New England Cincinnati, 
74; and Ohio Company, 74 

JVewport Mercury, as a source, 11 n 

Newspapers, article on monarchical 
project of 1786, 58-59. See also 
Aurora, Pennsylvania Journal, Penn- 
sylvania Packet, Periodicals, Press, 
Stamp Act repeal. See further 
Bibliography 

Nicola, Colonel, life, 41; proposes mon- 
archy, 41-46; reasons for propositions, 
41-43, Appendix A; opposes civil 
war, 42; features of plan, 43-46; 
praises British "mixed government," 
43; and reforms, 44 n; rebuked by 
Washington, 46, 48; his propositions 
defended, 46, Appendix A; compared 
with Varnum, 47; and Newburgh 
Addresses, 50-52; compared with 
Ohio Company leaders, 109-110; 
indirectly mentioned, 118, 118 n; 
apologizes to Washington, Appendix 
A; and political theories, Appendix 
A 

."Nigola propositions. See Nicola 



Nobility, for United States, 22, 44; 
impresses John Adams, 124. See 
also Adams (John), Hamilton, House 
of Nobles, Nicola 

Nootka Sound controversy, and British- 
American relations, 113 

Norman dukes, and hypothetical case 
of English allegiance, 95 

Northern states, and monarchical ten- 
dencies, 70-73, 79, 79 n 

Northwest Territory, governed by St. 
Clair, 49. See also Ohio Settlements 

Ohio Company, and New England 
Cincinnati, 74; and Newburgh Pe- 
titioners, 74; treated by Hulbert, 74; 
promoters close-mouthed, 74; and 
land grants, 107; stresses devotion to 
Union, 107; defended by Putnam, 
108; in difficulties with Congress, 108; 
endangered by Indians, 108; uncer- 
tain on Mississippi navigation, 108- 
109; and attitude of leaders on mon- 
archy, 109; and its forerunners, 109; 
and like-minded groups, 109-110 

Ohio country, mentioned, 73 

Ohio settlements, and monarchical 
projects, 101-104,106-110 

"Opinions and Observations of Differ- 
ent Persons Respecting the United 
States," secret report, 104-106 

"Opposition," stirred by Washington's 
support of Jay's treaty, 117; attacks 
Jay's treaty, 117; final verdict on 
Washington, 118-119; on John 
Adams, 119-124; admires French, 
hates British, 120. See also Opposi- 
tion press, Washington 

Ordeal, in comparison with Alien Bill, 
122 

Osnaburgh. See Bishop of Osnaburgh 

Otis, James, praised, 17 

Otto, M., French charge, 95; on mon- 
archical tendencies of the Cincinnati, 
95; suspicions explained, 95 n 

Paine, Thomas, and Junius, 15-16; 
author of Common Sense, 21; attacks 
monarchy, 21; censures British mon- 
archy, 21; leaves loophole for elective 
monarchy, 21; answered, 23; and 
Secretary to Committee for Foreign 
Affairs, 33, bad faith, 33; attacks 
Deane, 33-34; veracity questioned, 
33-34; criticized by Samuel Adams, 
33-34 

Paris, mentioned, 86 

Parliament, and attitude of Americans, 
13, 15; defended by "Westchester 



i6i] 



INDEX 



l6l 



Farmer," 20; and Vermont, 38 

Parody, on loyal addresses to King, 14; 
on monarchical project of 1786, 59 

Party feeling, high, 121; and acts of de- 
fence, 121; and monarchical charges, 
127 

Paterson, William, represents New 
Jersey, 84; on monarchy and tyranny, 
84 

Pennsylvania, and Whiskey Insurrec- 
tion, 117; and "A native of Pennsyl- 
vania," 118 

■"Pennsylvania Farmer", exhorted to 
become a "Son of Liberty," 17; popu- 
lar, 19; approves fall of Stuarts, 19; 
warns against independence, 19; 
warns against antimonarchical ten- 
dencies, 19; cites case of Charles I, 
19 

Pennsylvania Journal^ denies monarchi- 
cal reports, 82, 95 

Pennsylvania Packet^ prints Boston arti- 
cle against monarchical tendencies, 
80; denies monarchical reports, 82 n, 
95 

Periodicals, and monarchical charges, 
126. See also Newspapers, Press 

Pharisaical homage, of Washington, 
118-119 

Phelps and Gotham's Purchase, and 
Gorham, 67 

Philadelphia, and Federal Convention, 
76, 80; mentioned, 79 n, 86, 116 

Pickering, Colonel, plans western col- 
ony, 109 

Pierce, William, on delegates to Con- 
vention, 68 n 

Pinckney, Charles, on executive powers 
and monarchy, 85 

Pitt, William, honored in celebrations 
of repeal of Stamp Act, 10-11 

Plumer, William, not averse to mon- 
archy, 56-57; fears monarchical ten- 
dencies, 100 

Poland, its king satirized, 18; example 
of elective monarchy, 24, 87; and 
definition of republic, 83 

Political parody. See Parody 

"PoHtical Picture of Europe," published 
in America, 18; quoted, 18 

Political theories, and conclusions, 127. 
See also Contract theory. Kingship, 
and names of individual leaders, as 
Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, etc. 

Political verses, quoted, 14, 16, 35, 53, 57 

Politics. See Campaign literature. 
Monarchical charges. Party feeling. 
Religion and politics 

Pope, Alexander, poet, quoted, 38-39 n, 
57 



Pownall, Thomas, possibly JuniuSy 
15 n; suggests British stadtholder for 
colonies, 32 n 

Presidency, compared with royalty, 
99 n, 119-121. See also Executive 

President, contrasted with British 
King, 101 n; and Genet's appeal to 
the people, 117; firm against Whiskey 
Insurrection, 117; incurs hostility, 
117; dictatorial, 121. See also 
Adams (John), Executive, Washing- 
ton 

Presidential throne. See Executive, 
Throne 

President's message. See Adams (John) 

Press, opposition, makes monarchical 
charges against Washington, 116-119 

Prince' Ferdinand. See Ferdinand 

Prince Henry. See Henry of Prussia 

Prince Henry project. See Monarchi- 
cal project of 1786 

Prince of Brandenburgh. See Brand- 
enburgh 

Prince of Nassau. See Nassau 

Prince William Henry. See William 
Henry 

Proclamation of neutrality, attacked, 
116 

Prussia, and absolutism, 18; its king 
satirized, 18. See also Frederick II, 
Henry of Prussia 

Public opinion, on kingship, 21; mon- 
archical, 26; on Broglie plan, 33; 
opposed to monarchical tendencies, 
38, 40, 120, 127-128; preparing for 
stronger measures, 93; opposed to 
Convention, 93; difficult to know, 
93, 115; described, 94-98; and reac- 
tion to monarchy, 94; and Franklin 
anecdote, 94n;in Vermont, 111-113; 
influenced by French Revolution, 
116-117; concerning Washington, 
116-119; influenced by Genet, 117; 
true to republican principles, 120, 
128 

Putnam, General, of Massachusetts, 
107; writes to Ames, 107; denies 
likelihood of separatism, 107-108; 
his arguments interpreted, 107-109; 
warns against separatism, 108; and 
Ohio Company, 108-109 

Quartering Act, opposed, 13 

Randolph, Edmund, represents Virgin- 
ia, 81; on single executive as mon- 
archical, 81-82; refuses to sign Con- 
stitution, 82; on monarchy in Ameri- 
ica. 94 



1 62 



162 



Rationa/is, defends monarchy, 23; for 
independence as last resort, 23 

Read, George, represents Delaware, 92; 
favors strong national government, 
92; favors good behavior term for 
executive, 92 

Regicides of France. See French Revo- 
lution 

Religion and politics, 17 n, 79 n, 116 

Republic, defined by Hamilton, 83; 
defined by Madison, 83, 83 n 

Republican government, insisted upon 
in America, 22, 22 n; condemned by 
Zubly, 23; turbulent, 23, 73-74, and 
lesson of early failures, 24, 43, 73-74; 
opposed, 25-26; admired, 26, 43; 
not suited to America, 26, 79, 106- 
107; not superior to monarchical 
form, 38; weak, 46, 79; cloaks 
tyranny, 51; supported by the Cin- 
cinnati, 73-74; and reaction in 
northern states, 79-81; not fairly 
tested, 81; and Hamilton, 82-83, 
85-86; exalted, 87; perfected form 
urged, 88-89; only type suited to 
America, 90-91; has only practical 
interest to Vermont separatists. 111; 
in experimental stage, 126 

Republican principles. See Public 
opinion 

Republican theory, adhered to by Ham- 
ilton, 124. See also Adams (John) 

Republicans, fear Hamilton, 124. See 
also Democrats 

Republics. See Republican govern- 
ment 

Revolution, new one deplored, 81 

Revolutionary War, mentioned, 112, 
117; and French aid, 116 

Rodney, Admiral, wins naval victory, 
47-48 

Rodney, Thomas, on Articles of Con- 
federation, 54; identified, 54 n 

Rome, and definition of republic, 83 

Royal authority, in comparison with 
presidency, 119-121 

Royal dynasty, with Hamilton as 
founder, 125 

Royal emblems. See Emblems 

Royal faction, under John Adams, 121 

Royal government of France, aids 
Americans, 116; and American alli- 
ance, 116; and Washington, 116-117 

Royal precedents, followed by Washing- 
ton, 118 

Royal representatives, attacked, 13 

Royal trappings, for presidential chair, 
115-116; and Vice President, 115-116 

Royalty, escapes brunt of attack, 13; 
impresses John Adams, 124. See 



also Kingship 
Rutledge, John, on executive powers 
and monarchy, 85 

St. Clair, General, letter to Washing- 
ton, 49-50; grievances, 50; men- 
tioned, 106 

St. Petersburgh, mentioned, 86 

Salus Populi, refutes Rationalise 24; 
admits failure of earlier republics, 24; 
optimistic for American republics, 24 

^\2cret service, Canadian, maintains 
spies in United States, 71-72; makes 
reports, 78 n, 104-106 

Sedition act. See Alien and sedition 
acts 

Senate, Monroe's observations as mem- 
ber, 59-60; and annual election, 78 j 
observation of member on Washing- 
ton, 116; monarchical, 120; and 
hereditary tenure, 123; and John 
Adams, 123; and monarchical charges, 
126. See also Hamilton plan 

Senators. See Senate 

Separatism in New England, 68; fore- 
cast by Gorham, 69, 109; on the 
frontier, 69, 101-115; discussed by 
Putnam, 107-109; discussed by Wash- 
ington, 109; summarized, 114-115. 
See also Blount Conspiracy, Putnam, 
Vermont. 

Shays Rebellion, and monarchical ten- 
dencies, 55-59; 80-81; and Cincinnati, 
73 n; influence on John Adams, 119, 
124 

Sherman, Roger, letters from John 
Adams on government, 120 

Short, William, American in Paris, 95; 
ridicules reports of monarchical ten- 
dencies, 95-96; and news of mon- 
archical tendencies, 95-96; changes 
mind, 96; writes to Cutting, 100; on 
monarchical features of Constitu- 
tion, 100; writes to Grayson, 100; on 
monarchical tendencies, 100; and 
Jefferson, 100 n 

Simcoe, Governor, on British prince 
for America, 105; ideas explained, 
105-106; on stubborn spirit of Amer- 
ican government, 105; favors dis- 
solution of Confederacy, 105-106; on 
American public opinion, 105-107, 
113; on neutrality of Vermont, 113- 
114; and assurances of Chittenden, 
114 

Smith, Mr., on monarchical tendencies 
in Massachusetts, 55-56 

Soldiery, its political use deplored, 18 

Solomon. See King Solomon 



i63] 



INDEX 



163 



"Son of Liberty," appeals to "Pennsyl- 
vania Farmer," 17 
South Carolina. See Lowndes 
Southern states, republican, 79 
Sovereign. See Executive, King 
Spain, absolutism cited, 18; and Wil- 
kinson's projects, 101-102; its Coun- 
cil replies to Wilkinson, 102; and 
projected colony on Mississippi, 106; 
unsuited to govern West, 108; and 
Mississippi, 108; preferable to Con- 
gress, 108; threatened by Blount 
Conspiracy, 114. See also Wilkinson 
Spanish King. See Spain 
Sparta, and definition of repubhc, 83 
"Spurious Letters," supposedly written 
by Washington, 117; and monarchi- 
cal charges, 117 
Stadtholder, for British colonies, 32 n; 
in comparison with President, 63; 
as example, 87. See also Nassau, 
Netherlands 
Stamp Act Congress, devoted to King, 9 
Stamp Act controversy, and King, 9 
Stamp Act repeal, and newspaper ac- 
count, 10; and King, 10 
Stamp duties, precedent for monarchy, 

125 
States, and army, 42, 44; and military 
defence, 46; power for ill, 47; and 
comment by Washington, 48; under 
Articles of Confederation, 54-56; 
in Hamilton plan, 86. See also Con- 
stitutions of states, and states by 
names and groups 
States' rights, in Convention, 88 
Steuben, General, declared a mon- 
archist, 40; and friends, 62-63; and 
monarchical project of 1786, 62-65; 
and Prince Henry, 63; ill treated by 
Congress, 63; interested in govern- 
ment, 63, 63 n; reorganizes American 
army, 63; letter from Prince Henry, 
64-65 
Stuarts, tyranny cited, 16-17. See 

Charles I, Charles II 
Swift, J. G., and monarchical charges 

by Monroe, 60; identified, 60 n 
Sydney, Lord, writes to Dorchester, 
96; on American application for 
Hanoverian sovereign, 96; opposes 
Bourbon sovereign, 96, and reports 
from Canada, 96-97; 104-107 

Taxation, and currency shortage, 47; 

inadequate to needs, 47 
Tazewell, Henry, on copying British 

government, 121-122 
Tea, King's order for its destruction 

ridiculed, 14 
Tenure of office during good behavior, 



for Virginia, 25. See also Executive, 
Hamilton plan. Senate 

Thacher, Dr., on Gorham, 67 

"The Day," toasted, 123 

Throne, American, mentioned, 22; for 
Washington, 53; and presidential 
chair, 115-116. See also Brunswick, 
French prince, Henry of Prussia, 
Hereditary president, House of Han- 
over, Monarchical project. Monarch- 
ical tendencies, Nicola, Warren 

Tories. See Loyalists 

"To the Inhabitants of Pennsylvania," 
defends monarchy, 23 

Treaty of peace, 1783, news reaches 
America, 53; and army reduction, 
53; ratified, 54 

Trial. by battle, compared with Alien 
Bill, 122 _ _ 

Tupper, Benjamin, writes to Knox in 
favor of monarchy, 72-73, 109; later 
sentiments, 74 

Turkey, its Grand Seignior ridiculed, 18 

Tyranny, and monarchy, 83-84; and 
legislative power, 84 

United States, and Vermont, 36, 39, 
113-114; condition under Articles of 
Confederation, 36, 39, 47-49, 51, 
53-60, 70-74, 78-79, 81, 95-97, 102, 
104; under the Constitution, 105- 
107. See also Congress 

United States government, three types 
advocated, 78, monarchical type in- 
evitable, 81-82; and new war with 
Great Britain, 113-114; a "monarch- 
ical republic, or ... limited 
monarchy," 120 

Upper Canada, under Governor Sim- 
coe, 113 

Van Tyne, C. H., on religion and poli- 
tics, 17 n 

Varnum, J. M., writes to Washington, 
46-48; suggests monarchy or military 
state, 47, 109; interested in western 
colony, 47; and Ohio Company, 47; 
and public position, 47; on Articles 
of Confederation, 47; letter from 
Washington, 48; oration at Marietta, 
48-49, 74; characterized, 48 n 

Venice, and failure of republics, 43 

Vergennes, Count of, cited by John 
Adams, 34 

Vermont, approached by British on 
negotiations for reunion, 35-36; in 
danger, 36; refused admittance to Con- 
federation, 36; rivalry with neigh- 
boring states, 36; leaders accept 
offer to negotiate, 36; negotiations 
described and interpreted, 36-38; 



164 



MONARCHICAL TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES 



164 



immune from British attack, 37 
n; motives, 37 n, 110-114; people 
against reunion, 38; and toast to 
King George, 38 n; eagerness for 
admittance to Confederation lessens, 
38 n, 39; and neutrality, 38 n, 39 n; 
113-114; separatists in final negotia- 
tions with Great Britain, 110-115, 
commissions Levi Allen, 112; enters 
Union, 113; and pro-British senti- 
ment, 113-114; fears Indians, 114 

Verses. See political verses 

Vice President, accused of monarchical 
tendencies, 115-116. See also Adams 

Virginia, on ratification of Constitu- 
tion, 99; and elective monarchy, 99- 
101. See also Carrington, McClurg, 
Mason, Randolph 

Virginia Resolutions, against alien and 
sedition acts, 122; on monarchical 
tendencies, 122 



Walsh, C. M., on John Adams, 123-124 

War. See France, French and Indian 
War, Great Britain, Revolutionary 
War, United States 

Warren, Joseph, refers to American 
throne, 22. See also Brunswick, 
Throne 

Washington, George, unduly exalted 
according to Kalb, 35; and monarch- 
ical propositions at Newburgh, 39, 
40-46, 118; rebukes Nicola, 46; 
letter from Varnum, 46-48; letter to 
Varnum, 48; letter to Secretary of 
War, 50; and second Newburgh Ad- 
dress, 51-52; retires, 53, 118; and 
throne, 53, 95, 117; letter from Jay, 
57; writes to Jay, 57-58; on monarch- 
ical tendencies, 57-58; writes to 
Knox, 58; writes to Madison, 58; 
mentioned, 61, 109, 119; for Execu- 
tive, 78; tending towards stronger 
measures, 92, 92 n; relations with 
Hamilton, 92; writes to Hamilton, 
92; pessimistic on Convention, 92; 
on public opinion, 92; and views in 
Convention, 92; and Cincinnati, 95; 
interested in West, 107 n, 109, 110 n; 
and monarchical charges, 115-119, 
126; and ceremony, 116; excused, 
116; and popularity, 116; and pro- 
clamation of neutrality, 116; anti- 
republican, 117; prefers farm to 
throne, 117; and Genet, 117; and 
Whiskey Insurrection, 117; and Jay 
treaty, 117; motives questioned, 117; 
and "Spurious Letters," 117; at- 



tacked by Aurora, 117-118; tem- 
porarily exempt from monarchical 
charges, 118; and war with France, 
118; defended by Jefferson, 118-119; 
advised by John Adams, 119-120; 
and apologies from Nicola, Appen- 
dix A; and conclusions, 126 
Welsh, Dr., on Gorham, 66-67 
West, and military colony, 44-46, 109; 
and buffer state, 45-46; in second 
Newburgh Address, 51; and Gorham 
on disunion, 69; and Mississippi 
colony, 106; and crisis, 106. See 
also Frontier, Kentucky, Land grants, 
Monarchical projects, Nicola, Ohio 
Cornpany, Pickering, Putnam, Sep- 
aratism, Tennessee, Tupper, Varnum, 
Vermont, Wilkinson 
"Westchester Farmer," popular, 19; 
compared to Paine, 19; defends mon- 
archy, 19; opposes Committees and 
Congress, 19-20; on supremacy of 
Parhament, 19-20; opposes revolu- 
tion, 20; refuted, 20 
Wheelers, and Shays Rebellion, 81 
Whiskey Insurrection, in Pennsylvania, 
117; and hostility to President, 117; 
and Hamilton, 125 
Whitehall, mentioned, 96 
Wilkes, John, and America, 14 n 
Wilkinson, James, and monarchical 
proiect, 101-104; drafts memorial to 
Spa'in, 101; influential, 101-102; re- 
ceives reply from Spain, 102; and 
second memorial, 102-103; scope of 
project, 102-103; and disloyalty 
charges, 103; untruthful, 103-104; 
and motives, 103, 111-112; and sup- 
porters, 103 n; and British offers, 104 
n; author of "Desultory Reflexions," 
106 n; compared with Levi Allen, 
111-112 
William Henn,", British prince, visits 

America, 96 n 
Williamsburgh, Virginia, mentioned, 100 
Williamson, Hugh, on inevitabihty of 

monarchy, 82 n 
Wilson, James, on monarchy and 
tyranny, 84; on public opinion, 93, on 
presidency as monarchical, 99 n 

X.Y.Z. correspondence, and effects, 121 

Yorktown victory, and Vermont sep- 
aratism, 39; followed by depression, 
40; indirectly mentioned, 114 

Zubly, Dr., described, 22-23; denounces 
repubhcan government, 23 



ILLINOIS BIOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS 

Vol.1 
Nos. 1 and 2. A revision of the cestode family proteocephalidae. With 16 

plates. By G. R. La Rue. $2.00. 
No. 3. Studies onr the cestode family anoplocephalidae. With 6 plates. By 

H. Douthitt. 80 cents. 
No. 4. Larval trematodes from North American fresh-water snails. With 8 

plates. By W. W. Cort. |1.20. 

Vol. II 
No. 1. The classification of lepidopterous larvae. With 10 plates. By S. B. 

Fracker. $1.50. 
No. 2. On the osteology of some of the loricati. With 2 plates. By John E. 

Gutberlet. 50 cents. 
No. 3. Studies of gregarines. With 15 plates. By Minnie E. Watson. $2.00. 
No. 4. The genus meliola in Porto Rico. With 5 plates. By Frank L. Stevens. 

75 cents. 

Vol. Ill 
No. 1. Studies on the factors controlling the rate of regeneration. By Charles 

Zeleny. $1.25. 
No. 2. The head-capsule and mouth-parts of Diotera. With 25 plates. By 

Alvah Peterson. $2.00. 
No. 3. Studies on North American Polystomidae, Aspidogastridae, and Par- 

amphistomidae. With 11 plates. By Horace W. Stunkard. $1.25. 
No. 4. Color and color-pattern mechanism of tiger beetles. With 29 black and 

3 colored plates. By Victor E. Sheiford. $2.00. 

Vol. IV 
No. 1. Life history studies on Montana trematodes. With 9 plates. By E. C. 

Faust. $2.00. 
No. 2. The goldfish (Carassius carassius) as a test animal in the study of toxicity. 

By E. B. Powers. $1.00. 
No. 3. Morphology and biology of some turbellaria from the Mississippi Basin. 

W^ith 3 plates. By Ruth Higley. $1.25. 
No. 4. North American Pseudophyllidean cestodes from fishes. With 13 plates. 

By A. R. Cooper.* 

Vol.V 
No. 1. The skull of Amiurus. By J. E. Kindred. $1.25. 
No. 2. Contributions to the life histories of Gordius robustus Leidy and Paragor- 

dius varius (Leidy). By Henry Gustav May. With 21 plates. $1.50. 
Nos. 3 and 4. Studies on Myxosporidia. A synopsis of genera and species of 

Myxosporidia. By Rokusaburo Kudo. With 25 plates and 2 text 

figures. $3.00. 

Vol. VI 
No. 1. The nasal organ in Amphibia. By G. M. Higgins. With 10 plates. 

$1.00. 
Nos. 2 and 3. Revision of the North xA.merican and West Indian species of Cus- 

cuta. With 13 plates. By Truman George Yuncker. $2.00. 
No. 4. The larvae of the Coccinellidae. With 6 plates. By J. Howard Gage. 

75 cents. 

Vol. VII 
No. 1. Studies on gregarines. II: a. A synopsis of the polycysted gregarines of 

the world, excluding those from the Myriapoda, Orthoptera, and 

Coleoptera; and b. An annotated list of the new gregarines described 

from 1911-1920. By M. W. Kamm. $1.00. 
No. 2. The mollusk fauna of the Big Vermilion River, Illinois, with special refer- 
ences to the Naiades or fresh water mussels. By F. C. Baker. $1.25. 



* Out of print. 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS STUDIES IN LANGUAGE 
AND LITERATURE 

Vol. II 

No. 1. Thomas War ton: a biographical and critical study. By Clarissa Rinaker. 

11.00. 
No. 2. Illustrations of medieval romance on tiles from Chcrtsey Abbey. By 

Roger Sherman Loomis. 75 cents. 
No. 3. Joseph Ritson, a critical biography. By Henry Alfred Burd. $1.00. 
No. 4. Miscellanea Hibernica. By Kuno Meyer. |1.00. 

Vol. Ill 
No. 1. The Ad Beum Vadit of Jean Gerson. By David H. Carnahan. $1.75. 
No. 2. Tagalog texts with grammatical analysis. Part I. Texts and transla- 
tion. By Leonard Bloomfield. ^1.50. 
No, 3. The same. Part 11. Grammatical analysis. $3.00. 
No. 4. The same. Part III. List of formations and glossary. $1.50. 

Vol. IV 
No. 1. Madame De Stael's literary reputation in England. By R. C. Whitford. 

75 cents. 
Nos. 2, 3 and 5. Index verborum quae in Senecae fabulis necnon in Octavia prae- 

texta reperiuntur. By W. A. Oldfather, A. S. Pease, and H. V. Canter. 

Part I, $2.00. Parts II and III, $1.50 each. 

Vol. V 

Nos. 1 and 2, The influence of Christianity on the vocabulary of Old English 

poetry. By A. Keiser. $1.50. 
No. 3. Spenser's defense of Lord Grey. By H. S. V. Jones. $1.00. 
No, 4. Ysopet-Avionnet: The Latin and French texts. By K. McKenzie and 

W. A. Oldfather. $1.50. 

Vol. VI 

No. 1, La ColleccJon Cervantina de la Sociedad Hispanica de America. Ediciones 
de Don Quijote. By Homero Seris. $1.50. 

Nos. 2 and 3. M. TuUi Ciceronis De Divinatione. Liber primus. With com- 
mentary. By A. S. Pease. Part I, $1.50. Part II, $1.50. 

No. 4. De Fragmenti Suetoniani de Grammaticis et Rhetoribus Codicimi Nexu 
etFide. By R. P. Robinson. $2.00, 

Vol. VII 
No. 1, Sir Robert Howard's comedy, "The committee." With introduction and 

notes. By C. N. Thurber. $1.50. 
No. 2. The sepulchre of Christ in art and liturgy. By N. C. Brooks. $1.50. 
No. 3. The language of Konungs Skuggsja. By G. T. Flom. $1.50. 

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 

Vol. IX, 1920 
Nos. 1 and 2. War powers of the executive in the United States. By C. A. Ber- 

dahl. $2.25. 
No. 3. English government finance, 1485-1558. By F. C. Dietz.* 
No. 4. The economic policies of Richelieu. By F. C. Palm.* 



Requests for exchange for the Studies in the Social Sciences, the Biological 
Monographs, and the Studies in Language and Literature should be addressed to 
the Exchange Editor, Library, University of Illinois, Urbana, 111. All communica- 
tions concerning sale or subscriptions, or of an editorial nature, should be addressed 
to the Editor of the University Studies, University of Illinois, Urbana, III, The 
subscription price of each series is three dollars a year. The prices of individual 
monographs are shown in the lists given above. 



^Out of print. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

'' " " " II nil !i II n 



011 801 102 8 




